Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Direct Grant Schools

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the future of the direct grant schools in England and Wales.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): Not before I have received and considered the second report of the Public Schools Commission.

Mr. Dudley Smith: But in view of the excellence of the vast majority of direct grant schools, would the Secretary of State agree that they should be sustained and encouraged rather than penalised? As they are perhaps the best example of democratic and progressive education in this country, would the Minister, as an enlightened man, be their friend rather than their enemy?

Mr. Short: I hope that I am the friend of all worth-while and excellent educational institutions, but we want these schools to integrate in the reorganisation of secondary schools on comprehensive lines.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge what does not always seem to be fully recognised, namely, the essential contribution made by these schools, particularly in the North of England, to the total provision, especially for many parents wanting a denominational education for their children?

Mr. Short: I agree that these schools make a first rate educational contribution and also make a contribution to the provision of denominational education. At the same time we want these schools to become integrated in the general reorganisation on comprehensive lines. We cannot allow the injustice of selection to continue.

School Dinners

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the permitted and estimated current cost of supervising school dinners, where teaching staff are not available; and to what extent schools are making use of voluntary or only nominally rewarded help.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): Arrangements for supervision of children taking school meals are the responsibility of local education authorities after consultation with their teachers. I am glad to say that in most areas teachers are providing voluntary supervision and supporting the head teacher in his overall responsibility for the conduct of the school meal.
The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Hill: Can the Minister say whether mothers are being involved to any significant and worth-while extent?

Mr. Howell: I am sure that where they are involved it is worth while. I am not certain that it is significant. There have been some recent reports about this matter. Any voluntary service in our society is to be welcomed. I welcome the opportunity of saying on behalf of the Government that the social education concerned in the supervision of school meals is very much an educational matter and is not to be lightly


written off, as I am afraid some educationists tend to write it off at the moment.

Universities (Academic Freedom)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will discuss with the Committee of Vice Chancellors, the Association of University Teachers and the National Union of Students, the problems of ensuring academic freedom in the universities.

Mr. Edward Short: I believe that academic freedom is essential to our concept of a university, but if there are any problems, they are best left to the good sense of the universities.

Mr. Brooks: But in view of the methods employed and the global tactics used to discredit their attempts, with the organised chanting and intimidation which applies in some of our universities today, does my right hon. Friend think that at least he could give public support to the recent code drawn up by the Council of the Association of University Teachers?

Mr. Short: There is perhaps a real threat in some institutions to academic freedom, but this also is best left to be dealt with within the university community itself.

Universities (Post-graduate Degrees and Qualifications)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will set up a Committee of Inquiry into the post-graduate degrees and qualifications awarded by universities.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): No, Sir. The awarding of degrees and other qualifications is a matter for the universities themselves. I understand that in recent years the universities have done a great deal to liberalise their higher degree regulations, and broaden the patterns of their postgraduate work.

Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend not agree that recently there has been a vast proliferation in the number and type of post-graduate awards and that this matter requires some attention in view of the potential rôle which graduate

schools could play in our university and higher educational work in the years ahead?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend might like to know that the University Grants Committee in its memorandum of guidance for the 1967 quinquennium specifically indicated that there should be a slowing down of conventional postgraduate degrees and that they should be replaced by degrees with a more vocational basis and also by more post-experience degrees. The research councils, especially the Science Research Council, are making a larger proportion of their awards applicable to post-experience courses.

Sir E. Boyle: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the interesting article by Mr. Martin Trow in the Higher Educational Review in which he points out the primacy of the first degree in our higher educational system? Does it not point to the desirability of some sort of inquiry on the lines suggested by the hon. Member?

Mrs. Williams: At present the situation is so new in respect of the Research Council's emphasis on post-experience that we should like to see a proportion of students coming forward for this new type of award before we thought it appropriate to begin any major inquiry.

School Admission (Four-year-old Children)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to provide for the admission of children to school at four years of age in all areas or on a voluntary basis in the education priority areas.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Bacon): Local educaton authorities do not need my right hon. Friend's permission to admit children below the age of five to existing classes.

Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend not consider urging them to do so? Does she not agree that this has perhaps a more important immediate contribution to make than raising the school leaving age? Is she aware that it is felt by many teachers, particularly in some priority areas, that children these days often come


in at the age of five who have not seen a book and have no knowledge of primitive hygiene, and that, while play groups have a rôle to play, they take too much of a middle-class entry?

Miss Bacon: I would not like to enter into a discussion of the respective merits or demerits of raising the school leaving age and providing nursery education. But we have recently embarked on the urban programme, which means that, for the first time since the end of the war, we shall be expanding nursery education About a quarter of the four-year-olds are either in school or nursery classes at present. There are 212,000 four-year-olds in primary schools.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what both teachers and parents passionately need is a rapid expansion of nursery education for children all over the country between the ages of three and five? Will she bear that in mind and see what she can do to get more money for it?

Miss Bacon: I quite agree. We have made a start and want to go on as soon as we have the resources in terms both of teachers and of the money for building. We regard this as a matter of high priority.

Football Matches (Televising Methods)

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into the effect on the extent to which the comfort and viewing of spectators and reporters at football matches is affected by the methods used by television crews in the filming of such matches.

Mr. Denis Howell: No, Sir. This matter is one for the football authorities.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that responsibility for the comfort and viewing of spectators at football matches does not always rest with the television crews? Will he take it upon himself to deal with the football authorities in order that something better can be got from the situation at football matches of this kind? Is he aware, for instance, that when North Shields won the Amateur Cup, the B.B.C.'s film unit was refused

entry to the North Shields dressing room? The football authorities have a great deal to do in this respect.

Mr. Howell: Whoever is responsible for the sad story of the North Shields Football Club, I am glad to say that it is not the Government. I referred not to television but to the football authorities. I hope that in this modern age of communications there is the maximum co-operation between both bodies in the interests of the public at large.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman do nothing to hinder the efficiency of the presentation on television screens of football matches, which is of a very high order in this country? Does he realise that, if he does so, he will prejudice the viewing opportunities of millions who are often working on Saturday and not able to attend matches in person?

Mr. Howell: As this House is delighted, with the rest of the sporting public, to record the successes of England, Newcastle United and others, I am pleased to pay tribute to the superb presentation of football by our television companies.

Children (Work Experience)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received as to the inability of children to obtain work experience due to certain sections of the Factories Acts and other legislation; and if he will consult with the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on methods of increasing the availability of this work experience to children.

Miss Bacon: Representations have been made to me by local education authorities, teachers and other interested parties. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity told the hon. Member in reply to his Question on 22nd May, the legal and safety problems relating to work experience schemes are being considered by the Departments concerned.

Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend accept, however, that this is a matter of some urgency as this vital experience is a vital part of education for mature school children?

Miss Bacon: I should not like to prejudge the issue, and all interested parties are being asked for their opinions about this. As my hon. Friend probably knows, there is not unanimity about it. The T.U.C. has recently come out against work experience even when the school leaving age is raised. But we are having all the necessary consultations, after which we shall be able to decide what to do.

University Teachers' Salaries (Negotiating Machinery)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now make a further statement on proposals for new negotiating machinery for university teachers' salaries.

Mr. Edward Short: I cannot at this stage add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in reply to the hon. Member at the end of her statement on 1st May.—[Vol. 782, c. 1645–50.]

Mr. Lane: I appreciate the difficulties referred to by the hon. Lady on that occasion. Even allowing for them, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to see that a definitive statement is made before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary is carrying out a general review of incomes policy, and the proposals of the U.G.C. on behalf of all three bodies are being considered in that context. When she has completed her review, I have no doubt that she will make a statement on the whole subject of incomes policy.

Electronics Students

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many full-time students of electronics there are in English and Welsh institutions taking graduate courses at the latest available date:
(2) what is the average annual output of graduates specialising in electronics from English and Welsh institutions over the last three years.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the academic year 1967–68, 7,271 students at universities and establishments of further education in England and Wales were taking first degree or diploma courses in

electrical engineering, including electronics. The average annual output from these courses in the three years 1965–66–1967–68 was 1,424.

Mr. Eadie: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is good that there should be an increase in the output of electronics graduates in this modern scientific and technological age? Would she not further agree that the abolition of the 11-plus and the introduction of comprehensive education widens the pool of ability and that, as a consequence, we shall probably get more graduates?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir. Almost invariably, the figures confound those who are prophets of doom about our education system. The annual output of electrical engineers has risen from 1,209 in 1965–66 to 1,596 in 1967–68, and the 1967–68 entry of students was still higher at 1,700.

Secondary Reorganisation (Wolverhampton)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the Wolverhampton Education Committee's policy regarding secondary reorganisation in the county borough; and what replies he has sent.

Miss Bacon: Apart from the concern which my hon. Friend has expressed recently on behalf of the Wolverhampton Labour Party, I have received representations from a number of Wednesfield residents objecting to the authority's statutory proposals for reorganisation in that area. I shall reply to the latter after 17th June when the time limit for objections has expired and I have made my decision.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had many letters from parents, teachers and teachers' organisations in both the Wolverhampton constituencies expressing concern at the attitude of the committee to comprehensive reorganisation, and that they are looking to her and her right hon. Friend to see that the Government's intentions are carried out in Wolverhampton? Will she assure us that that will be so?

Miss Bacon: As my hon. Friend knows, we were not able to agree to


Wolverhampton's scheme. The two grammar schools were to be retained as selective schools. But, as my right hon Friend has said, it is his intention to introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament to ensure that all local authorities submit schemes for secondary reorganisation which will bring an end to selection at the age of 11.

Boarding Schools (Inspection)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many unrecognised boarding schools have been inspected during the last 12 months; how many of these have now been recognised as efficient; how many have been informed that they will be recognised as efficient when certain structural alterations have been completed; and how many have been informed that their applications for recognition will be rejected.

Mr. Edward Short: Sixty-three during the twelve months to March, 1969. Of these, six have been recognised as efficient, two have been provisionally recognised and two will be recognised when they have implemented the recommendations of the local fire officer. Of the remaining 53, one is closing, one is ceasing to take boarders, 18 have been given advice on measures needed in order to reach recognition standards, and 33 will have a decision very shortly.

Mr. Turton: Dealing with schools where recognition is dependent on structural alterations, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the present financial stringency and give extended time for those structural alterations to be completed?

Mr. Short: I understand that the second round is to be completed by 1972, and I should have thought that that was ample time to get this work done. I hope so, anyhow. However, if the right hon. Gentleman has any difficulties, perhaps he will talk to me about them.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable delay in getting inspection at some schools? I know of three cases of postponements amounting in all to 18 months. Can he speed up inspection where the schools request it?

Mr. Short: We are doing our best to speed up inspections and will continue to try and improve on the time table to which I referred in replying to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

National Film Archive

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has now had with the British Film Institute regarding the improvement of the National Film Archive; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): A report on the future of the National Film Archive was agreed by the Governors of the British Film Institute on 5th May. The most pressing problem is the duplication of nitrate film. I am glad to say that within the last two weeks I have been able to arrange for £15,000 to be allocated in 1969–70 for this purpose. This is three times as much as the budget figure for 1968–69.

Mr. Allason: I am sure that the House welcomes the improved attitude towards the National Film Archive, but may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she recalls saying that the position was generally unsatisfactory? Is she satisfield that all the problems have been solved by her intervention?

Miss Lee: Certainly not. The position has obviously been improved, but more money will have to be spent. This will depend on the overall grant and also on the priority given by the Governors of the British Film Institute to this particular part of the problem.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this interim improvement will be gratefully received by all concerned with films, but may I ask whether she can offer hope for a further more radical approach to the preserving of films in the reasonably near future?

Miss Lee: My hon. Friend will recall that in a recent debate I said that the Government were in principle in favour of doing what he has just suggested. But this, again, is a matter of priorities and of stepping up the grant as fast as we can when circumstances permit—and I am not slow to ask for increased grants.

Mr. Channon: If the Government are in favour in principle of the statutory deposit of films, why on earth did they vote recently against a Bill which would have provided that power in principle?

Miss Lee: Because it would be necessary to set up a Committee and use the staff of this House going through an exercise when we knew that it had not enough priority to be carried through into law.

Tate Gallery

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the Tate Gallery.

Miss Jennie Lee: I hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement.

Mr. Allason: Has the right hon. Lady considered the use of the empty site at Trafalgar Square, earmarked eventually for the National Portrait Gallery, for the building of a gallery immediately so that the Tate Gallery could use it temporarily pending the provision of a new Tate Gallery when that can be provided on Millbank?

Miss Lee: All Departments involved have given this matter careful study. They have considered all the suggestions which have come from Members of this House and interested members of the public. I believe that in the near future we shall be able to make an announcement which will win pretty general approval.

Universities (Students in Academic Community)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will hold consultations with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals about improvements in the position of students within universities during the present academic year; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Discussions were held last year between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the National Union of Students, and a joint statement was issued which is largely concerned with the position of students in the academic community. It now rests with university authorities and student organisations to consider together

how the principles set out in the joint statement can best be applied in individual universities.

Mr. Lane: Will the hon. Lady agree that, with very few exceptions, the universities have made considerable progress in the right direction this year and that this reflects great credit on the good sense of the vast majority of senior members and students?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, indeed, many universities are putting forward proposals for reforms, some of them to the Privy Council and others have in almost all cases set up joint committees of students and staff and appear to be getting down to sensible and constructive work.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the hon. Lady confirm that either her Department or the University Grants Committee is keeping aro record of what has happened here so that the best existing practice can be spread as widely and easily as possible?

Mrs. Williams: We are informed of any formal attempts to alter constitutions of universties. In some cases we have to depend on the universities informing us what is going ahead. We do our best to learn. I hope that the universities will take up the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and keep us informed as far as possible.

School Building Programme (Raising of School Leaving Age)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated number of new secondary school places to be provided under his three-year programme of extra building preparatory to raising the school leaving age; and what is the increase in the number of secondary school pupils expected in the autumn of 1973.

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what figure he has set aside for building projects required for the raising of the school leaving age in 1972; and over what programme years it will be spent.

Mr. Edward Short: The value of the special building programme is £105 million spread over the three years 1970–73. The programme has been calculated in the expectation that some 287,000 additional pupils will be in


school in September, 1973, as a result of raising the leaving age. I estimate that about 30,000 of these can be accommodated in existing schools without further building. In addition to the £105 million, £20 million has been added to the ordinary building programme to take account of the increase in voluntary staying on at school expected between now and 1973.

Mr. Silvester: Does the Secretary of State think that the figures that he has just quoted will provide adequate accommodation, particularly in the North, where the disproportion of those staying on to what would be expected after the raising of the school-leaving age is particularly high?

Mr. Short: Yes, I think so. If the hon. Gentleman does some arithmetic afterwards, he will find that I have allowed about £400 an additional place, which is a very generous allowance. I agree with him about the position in the North. I am doing my best to persuade parents there to allow children to stay on over the statutory age. I hope that all hon. Members on both sides will do the same.

Mr. King: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what share Dorset will receive? Are there not also suggestions in the South of England that these sums will be inadequate to meet the cost?

Mr. Short: I am not a computer and cannot carry all these figures in my head. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants the figure I will send it to him.

Day-Release Students

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the proportion of day-release students whose fees are paid for at the full economic rate by the firms sending them.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: None, Sir. Only nominal fees are charged for part-time day courses of further education; for the most part no fees are charged for students under 18 and some authorities charge none for students under 21. An economic fee is charged for industrial training provided in colleges, but this normally forms part of a full-time course,

of which the educational part is normally borne by public funds.

Mr. Silvester: Will the hon. Lady agree that there are a number of courses now under day release which incorporate general studies with an industrial course? Would the charge to the industry not be a useful source of additional income for a part of education which needs rapid expansion?

Mrs. Williams: At present there are 11,000 first-year trainees following integrated courses of education and training entirely within technical colleges. The hon. Gentleman will understand that his suggestion has its appeal to us, but I think he will find that it has much less appeal to industry, as expressed through the views of the Confederation of British Industry.

Grants to the Arts (Report)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which recommendations of the Estimates Committee's Report on Grants to the Arts he intends to implement.

Miss Jennie Lee: A White Paper giving the observations of the Department, the Welsh Office and the Arts Council has been prepared but publication has been delayed by a strike at the Stationery Office. I can say, however, that the recommendations addressed directly to the Department have been accepted.

Motor Car and Motor Cycle Trials and Racing Circuits

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to provide additional facilities for motor car and motor cycle trails and racing circuits.

Mr. Denis Howell: No, Sir. The provision of facilities for motor sport is a matter for the clubs concerned or for local authorities.

Mr. Osborn: Surely the Minister is aware that there is a demand not so much for international trial facilities but for ordinary trial facilities throughout the country, particularly in the Yorkshire and Humberside area. I have already written to him about this. Can any of his organisations do anything to help these bodies who wish to provide such facilities?

Mr. Howell: Yes. We are especially aware of the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in this matter. As he says, we have been in correspondence about it. I am glad to confirm that the appropriate Sports Councils, the East Midlands as well as the Yorkshire and Humberside Sports Council, will be happy to co-operate with the motor sports to find suitable facilities in that part of the country. As both these Sports Councils have representatives of all the local authorities on them, I think this is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend not think that there is a certain moral obligation on hon. Members who put forward pet schemes like this at least to give us an estimate of the cost of such schemes when they profess to be in favour of cutting capital expenditure?

Mr. Howell: That is a very pertinent political point. But, as I am so glad to welcome support for sport from any part of the House, I leave that comment to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Crouch: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are other views about this type of sport, and will he take into account the views of people who have to live near such circuits?

Mr. Howell: It is because the Government have taken account of the noise nuisance to people living near the suggested area of this sport that previous applications, in which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) has been interested, have been rejected. That is not to say that we ought to disregard the devotees of this sport. Sport is essentially a matter where the individual should follow his interest. Those who follow motor car racing are just as entitled to a share in the sum as those who prefer football.

Single School Leaving Date

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what factors led him to decide against introducing a single school leaving date.

Mr. Edward Short: The Government had two considerations particularly in mind: the difficulties of absorption if all leavers came on to the labour market at the same time; and that the combined

effect of raising the leaving age to 16 and introducing a single leaving date would oblige some pupils to remain at school until they were nearly 17 and would be too drastic a change to make within a very short period.

Mr. Hill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this would be a desirable educational reform, and will he say whether the Government are taking steps to try to meet and remove the objections to it at the moment?

Mr. Short: I think that the two objections I have made are irremovable, but I think that that is the kind of goal towards which we shall work in future. I hope the time will come within a few years when all pupils will have a minimum five-year secondary course.

Mr. Marks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the single certificate leaving date applies to almost every other form of education except those who leave school at the earliest possible date? If industry can be organised to receive annually people from universities, grammar schools, and those with O-levels, it ought to be organised to receive the rest.

Mr. Short: I agree with that. As I say, I hope that we can work towards this change, but if it were done now I am sure it would be the less able pupils who would suffer. If all the pupils were put on the labour market at the same time, these pupils would probably be the ones who would be left behind in the struggle to get employment.

Secondary Education (Newbury)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) why arrangements were made for the Minister of State to receive a delegation from a political organisation in Newbury to discuss the reorganisation of secondary education in the area of the Newbury Divisional Executive Committee;
(2) why he has refused to agree to the requests of the Newbury Divisional Executive Committee and of four teacher organisations in Newbury to receive delegations to discuss the reorganisation of secondary education in the Newbury area.

Mr. Edward Short: Five deputations on this matter were requested and I


arranged for four of them to be received at senior official level. My right hon. Friend received informally an information deputation from the Newbury Constituency Labour Party to honour a long-standing undertaking given by her predecessors and because it would have been improper for officials to see such a deputation.

Mr. Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it appropriate that a delegation from one political organisation should be received in this way, when a similar courtesy and opportunity was refused to the divisional executive representatives of the education committee and the teacher organisations? Might not subsequent joint meetings have been prejudiced by this earlier reaction?

Mr. Short: As far as I am aware only one political organisation in Newbury asked for a deputation to be received. It would be improper to allow officials to receive a deputation from a political party. I always regard these as unofficial deputations. I never see them on the premises of the Department.

Sir E. Boyle: Is it not a very curious procedure for the right hon. Gentleman not to see the officially constituted body, the divisional executive, but for the right hon. Lady to receive, even unofficially, a particular political party? Is that not all the more discourteous and surprising bearing in mind that Berkshire has tried to pursue a policy on secondary education dictated entirely by educational considerations?

Mr. Short: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say how many times he met Birmingham Conservatives on this matter.

Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I cannot recall any occasion on which I received a delegation of my party and did not receive the Labour Party in power in the local authority?

Mr. Short: I imagine that, whether as Minister or Minister of State, the right hon. Gentleman turned down thousands of deputations. He knows that if in this Department we were to receive all the deputations we are asked to receive we should not have time to eat or breathe.

Young People (Voluntary Work)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further proposals he has for encouraging voluntary work among young people.

Mr. Denis Howell: In November, 1967, the Government launched the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, an independent organisation which has made a promising start in encouraging the development of local voluntary service schemes. In April last year a joint circular was issued making it quite clear to all statutory authorities that it was Government policy that such voluntary service by all reputable organisations should be encouraged. Currently we are conducting a survey of successful voluntary service practice, which will be published when complete.

Mr. Cordle: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that many of the regulations covering voluntary service prevent young people from offering their services to the community? As the hon. Gentleman is responsible for this work, will he urge his colleagues to play a more positive rôle in their Departments to encourage voluntary work, by dealing with these restrictive regulations?

Mr. Howell: I do not know the regulations which the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but if he draws my attention to them I shall be most anxious to examine them. All I can say is that the circular of April last year made it quite clear to all statutory bodies, hospital authorities, local authorities, and so on, that voluntary service to the community was a very proper object of public policy and that it was their duty to encourage it.

Teachers (Grant-aided Education)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of full-time qualified women teachers in English and Welsh primary schools on 1st April, 1966 left the grant-aided sector of education during the succeeding 12 months; and what is the corresponding figure for men teachers.

Miss Bacon: In this period 12·3 per cent. of the women and 3·9 per cent. of


the men qualified teachers left service in the maintained primary schools.

Mr. Biffen: Does not the quite startling dissimilarity between those two figures for men and women respectively have considerable implications for the financing of teacher-training, and indeed for the whole question of teacher salaries, and lend further currency to the argument for a debate on the Early Day Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on the whole question of the structure of teachers salaries?

Miss Bacon: I do not think it is very surprising, having regard to the fact that many women leave on getting married, and leave to have children. But a great many of them return later to service in schools. In the 12 months to 1st February, 1969, 4,823 returned full- or part-time to the primary schools, so it does not mean that because they leave they do not come back into the service at a later date.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the proportion of women who return is very small compared with those who leave? Will she tell us what was the average length of service of women leaving, and of men leaving?

Miss Bacon: I could not without notice give the figures for which the hon. Gentleman has asked, but I think it is clear—it has always been so—that more women than men leave in any year but a considerable number of them come back later in life as married women teachers.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that in spite of those figures the Government will continue to support the principle of equal pay in the teaching profession?

Miss Bacon: Yes, Sir. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Comprehensive Secondary Education

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what specific provisions he is making to meet the cost in the current year of the introduction of comprehensive secondary education.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been able to make available in the 1969–70 school building programme a total of over £10 million for projects specifically to help reorganisation. In addition, all other secondary projects within the total programme will contribute to comprehensive reorganisation as well as meeting the essential needs of new school places and, in some cases, the replacement of substandard schools.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that to introduce comprehensive secondary education nationally on a proper and satisfactory basis in the right buildings would cost a very large sum of money indeed, and is it not nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to threaten legislation to make this compulsory on local authorities unless and until he is prepared to provide the money?

Mr. Short: I do not accept the premise on which that question is based. We are introducing comprehensive education on a satisfactory basis. I am not threatening to introduce a Bill. I am going to introduce a Bill. There is no threat about that.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that hon. Gentlemen opposite were not interested in school building until the question of comprehensive education arose? Will he not fall into the trap of saying that we cannot have any form of comprehensive education unless we can spend multi-millions on providing the buildings first? That ought not to be the reason for having comprehensive education thwarted by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Short: The Conservative Party is willing to use any argument or any means to preserve selective secondary education.

Religious Instruction

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations have now been made to him about the future of religious instruction in schools; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Edward Short: The great majority of representations I have received have supported the continuance of compulsory provision for religious education.

Mr. Ogden: I am grateful for that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that,


over the past weeks, at least 350 letters have come from my constituency asking for an assurance that religious education in non-denominational schools will continue? Will he use his endeavours to make certain that his comments and intentions in this matter are made available to local authorities and to the parent-teacher associations?

Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. My views on this are widely known, and I receive hundreds of letters each week about it. It is as well to bear in mind that the only compulsion here is on the local authorities to provide this kind of teaching. There is no compulsion on the parent or the teacher. What would be oppressive is to deny the vast majority of parents this kind of teaching because a minority did not want it.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that a distinction may be drawn between moral education on the one hand and religious instruction on the other, and that many parents recognised this in their replies to the recent N.O.P. poll, in which they said that, while they were in favour of the one, they were certainly opposed to the other?

Mr. Short: I do not think that the poll did any such thing. It was done on a completely wrong basis. Of course all parents are in favour of moral education, but the vast majority want to go further and have religious education as well.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who profoundly disagree with his secondary education policy are deeply grateful to him for his defence of the principle of religious education in our schools?

Mr. Ogden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for the improvement in the quality and content of religious instruction courses in teacher training colleges.

Mr. Edward Short: The quality and content of college of education courses in religious instruction is the responsibility of college academic boards and of area training organisations. By means of courses and conferences, in which H.M. inspectors play a vigorous part, and through visits to colleges, improvements

in the teaching of this subject, as of others, are constantly being sought.
I have recently made a grant towards the cost of a working party established by the British Council of Churches to consider the recruitment, training and use of teachers concerned with religious education in the schools.

Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the teaching of religion is best based in the homes of the children rather than in the schools, but that in the schools it should not be just another item on the curriculum but should permeate the life of the school?

Mr. Short: I agree with that. It is a matter for the whole conduct of the school and the whole curriculum, but I think, also, that it is extremely important to regard this in the context of education. It is part of the education of the children.

Orchestras (Arts Council Inquiry)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the Arts Council national inquiry into British orchestras.

Miss Jennie Lee: The inquiry is meeting for the first time on 18th June. The Chairman is Professor Alan Peacock of the University of York. With permission I will circulate the names of the other members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Cordle: We shall welcome the Report when it comes, but, in the meantime, does the right hon. Lady recognise that many orchestras outside London need urgent attention and are losing their best musicians to London because they cannot pay London wages? Will she give this her urgent attention, because these people have a real concern in the life of the music of the country?

Miss Lee: I fully appreciate that point. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a very comprehensive inquiry, and that there will be no unnecessary delay.

Mr. Channon: What consultations is the right hon. Lady having about the grave concern aroused among members of the regional orchestras in view of the rumours circulating about possible B.B.C. action in this respect?

Miss Lee: I am sure that that comment will be noted by the Postmaster-General and by the Governors of the B.B.C., as well as in all quarters of the House. A big effort has been made, particularly by the Arts Council, to ensure that the attention of the appropriate authorities is drawn to our concern.
Following are the names of the members: Professor Alan Peacock (Chairman), Christopher Cory, Norman Del Mar, Myers Foggin, Sir William Hart, Alderman C. H. Lucas, Colin Mackenzie, Dr. A. H. Marshall, John May, Victor Olof and Hardie Ratcliffe.

Town Planning (Post-Graduate Awards)

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the details of the number of post-graduate awards in town planning to be made available for the academic year 1969–70; and whether he will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: 207 new awards have so far been made available by the Social Science Research Council in town and country planning. Some additional awards can be expected when the council's reserves are allocated in the autumn. The total is likely to be some 30 per cent. higher than the figure of awards for 1968–69.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is she aware of the concern expressed by the Town and Country Planning Institute following the transfer of responsibilities to the Social Science Research Council? Will she give an assurance that the number of awards is sufficient to meet the number of course places, which, at the moment, I understand, is 406?

Mrs. Williams: I am aware of the representations of the Town and Country Planning Institute. They were made before the recent increases, and I can only trust that, perhaps unusually, the Press and hon. Gentlemen opposite will give as much attention to a real increase as they gave to a totally false reduction.

Secondary Education (Essex)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science

whether he will make a statement on the future of secondary education in the county of Essex.

Miss Bacon: The pattern will be in accordance with the local education authority's approved reorganisation plans but in the case of Chigwell the authority is reconsidering its original plan for the area at my request.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that the situation in Chigwell presents very serious difficulties in moving over to a complete system of comprehensive education? Will the Department take the special problems of this district into consideration and not be too wooden about the matter?

Miss Bacon: I agree that there are special problems here and we want to do all we can to help. My departmental officials will always be available for that. But the reason why I asked Essex to think again about Chigwell is that the plan which it put to us involved the replacement of a large amount of post-war secondary school buildings, and we wanted to see whether that could be avoided.

Oral Answers to Questions — "THE TASK AHEAD" (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer the responsibility for keeping under review and amending the planning document, "The Task Ahead", from the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: But as the conclusions reached in the planning document can be almost entirely altered by the actions and policies of the Chancellor, would it not be more sensible if he had the responsibility for that document, and then the D.E.A. could be run down?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that that conclusion follows from the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's Question. I refer him to what I said on the broader subject in our debate on the Fulton Report last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange a meeting with the President of France to discuss the subject of arms supply to Nigeria.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek a meeting with the President of France to discuss the supply of munitions of war to Nigeria.

The Prime Minister: It is not possible at this stage to forecast the policy of the next President of France in respect of arms supply to the insurgents in Nigeria. With regard to the feasibility of arms control generally, I would refer my hon. Friends to my supplementary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 2nd April.—[Vol. 781, c. 497.]

Mr. Molloy: When the President of France is elected, will my right hon. Friend see him and use all his endeavours to reverse the policy of President de Gaulle, and stop arms going to Biafra? Will he also contact other Governments, like the Swedish Government, some of whose people are having fun dropping their bombs, and call a conference once again between the two sides to try to end this dreadful situation?

The Prime Minister: On the first part, we should have to consider what would be the proper means of representing to the French Government our very strong feeling that these arms shipments should stop, even if they go through other countries and are officially denied in France. As to the question of a meeting between both sides, I have expressed the view a number of times that this is primarily a matter for the African countries concerned. It is a tragedy that this was not settled at Monrovia, and we must go on doing all we can to get both sides together to get a cease-fire.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Council of Europe, where it was felt unanimously that one of the main factors in prolonging this sad and massive conflict was the supply of illicit arms to Colonel Ojukwu's forces? Would he bear in mind the example of the Governments of Sweden and Switzerland in stopping supplies in

their own territories by their nationals, and would he convey to the next leader of the French State the feelings of Her Majesty's Government and this House in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful. I will certainly look up what was said in that discussion in the Council of Europe, which, from my hon. Friend's account, seems to have been extremely helpful. The problem about the French Government is that they have denied that they were shipping arms, but that, in fact, the arms have been shipped from two Francophone countries in Africa which have been able to maintain their arms stocks by an almost constant infiltration of arms wherever they come from. It is a difficult matter to ask people to stop doing something which they deny doing.

Mr. Heath: There have been strong reports recently that the actual supply of arms alleged to come from French sources has been drying up. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that or not? What information have the Government about it?
Also, have the Government any information, in relation to Nigeria, about the missing British nurse, Miss Goatcher? What action do they propose in her case?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that there were reports of it drying up. I think that there were signs of that for a short time, but my information—I believe that this is alleged—is that supplies have been resumed again; that is, from the Francophone countries concerned. One hopes that the original sources of supply will dry up quickly.
The question of Miss Goatcher, raised in the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, is a problem with which we are all very much concerned. She is a Save The Children Fund nurse who inadvertently drove into secessionist territory on 29th May. She is at present held at Owerri, and we are, through the I.C.R.C., making representations for her release. Her getting there was entirely innocent, and it would be a most serious matter if she were to be put on any charge; if, for example, she were held up to trial because she went there. As she is working under I.C.R.C.


auspices, I suggest that the best solution is for us to let the I.C.R.C. do what it can to secure her release.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is it not clear that the Prime Minister has not changed his attitude one whit from the policy of the quick kill, a policy which has failed for two years? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he should reconsider this whole matter, remembering that there can be only a political solution and not a military one? Is he aware that what is urgently needed is a general arms embargo from all sides?

The Prime Minister: I have never given any credence to support of the policy of the quick kill. I have explained the reason why we have maintained supplies. The difference between our attitude is that what we have done has all been done above board. We have said what we have done publicly, and we have defended it in the House, sometimes in the face of deep though sincere, criticism.
The problem of the maintenance of this war long beyond the period when one might have expected it to have led to negotiations and an end is the fact that arms are coming in—with or without the right hon. Gentleman's support; he did not say—but that fact is not being admitted publicly, so that they are not subject to the gauntlet of public opinion.

Mr. Barnes: Would not the Prime Minister agree that for two years the policy of Her Majesty's Government has always been based on the hope that this was the war that would be over the week after next? Is it not abundantly clear that this war will not be over in the near future? Is it not time for there to be a reappraisal of British policy in this matter?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That has not been the basis of our policy. My right hon. Friends have explained in all the very serious debates that we have had the reason why we believe it is necessary for us to maintain our position as one of the arms suppliers. That has been fully explained. It has not been based on any forecast of the ending of the war.
We have taken a number of initiatives, and we have been working closely with others—for example, with the O.A.U. and the Emperor of Ethiopia—to try to get the parties together in order that the

fighting can come to an end and real arms control can become effective. This was the aim of practically every member of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference this year and I hope that all hon. Members will use any influence which they may have to get the two sides round the conference table.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the important point is not whether arms are coming in secretly or openly but, as has already been pointed out, the fact that it is now apparent that, so long as arms do go on reaching both sides, this war will not finish? Is the Prime Minister aware that an entirely new situation prevails and that, whatever our obligations may have been, Her Majesty's Government should now say that they are in favour of a general embargo on all those who are now supplying arms to both sides?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well—I have answered Questions before about this—that I have made it clear that one will not get an agreement by the suppliers when, for example, one of the main suppliers says that he is not supplying. The only way to stop this—I assure the House that there is no one more anxious than I to stop these arms supplies—would be by policing the receipts of arms on the ground. However, that cannot be done while fighting is going on. This means that one cannot have a cease-fire without arms control and that one cannot have arms control without a cease-fire.

Mr. Tilney: Since one night 10 days or so ago I was at Warri, where I heard overhead a constant stream of arms-supplying aircraft presumably mixed up with some Red Cross aircraft going to Uli airstrip, cannot the European nations which are now supplying arms be made to realise the vast number of deaths that they are causing in Nigeria? Cannot Her Majesty's Government give some support by supplying, for example, advance dressing stations or field hospitals manned by the R.A.M.C. or other Services so that anybody who is wounded above the thighs may have a hope of survival?

The Prime Minister: We are doing a great deal by way of medical supplies and other aid. I saw some of it myself, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman


saw it when he was in Nigeria. I wish that there were more general acceptance and recognition of what he said in the early part of his supplementary question. Indeed, the fact that arms supply planes and relief planes go in willy-nilly, one with another, is the reason for the tragedy of the shooting down of a Red Cross relief plane. Perhaps the best answer is that relief supplies should be allowed in by day; and then the arms supplies could take their own risk.

Mr. Heath: Reverting to the question of Miss Goatcher, of course the House will back the Government in taking the action they deem appropriate, through either the Save The Children Fund or the International Red Cross. However, as in the case of the oil men, when a strong protest was made by the Italian and other Governments, in part through Portugal, it secured their release, will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that Her Majesty's Government would wholeheartedly back any action which these associations may take; and I assure the Prime Minister that we would back up the Government in this?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for what he said but for raising this matter this afternoon. Certainly we are wholeheartedly behind these efforts, and, without going into too much detail, I might add that two other Governments—it is a question of what Governments are the appropriate ones in this connection—who might be regarded as having influence in this area are reported to be making a protest to secure Miss Goatcher's release. I think it is probably better if we leave the matter where it is for now. We are being as energetic as possible in the circumstances, through the I.C.R.C. and in other ways. If the problem is not solved immediately, the right hon. Gentleman may care to raise the matter again, when I will give him the most up-to-date information.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT POLICY STATEMENTS (MINISTER OF INFORMATION)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of Information with the duty of co-
ordinating the substance and timing of all major statements of Government policy.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister what is the practice of his administration with regard to the issue of Ministerial statements.

Mr. Boston: asked the Prime Minister what is the practice of his administration concerning public statements by Ministers in Great Britain and abroad.

The Prime Minister: On the appointment of a Minister of Information, I would refer to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) on 11th February. As far as Ministerial statements are concerned, there are, as in previous administrations, arrangements to ensure that these are in accordance with policy agreed by Ministers collectively. As far as statements abroad are concerned, my right hon. Friends follow the practice which has been traditional in these matters.—[Vol. 777, c. 288]

Mr. King: Does the Prime Minister share the view expressed by the Paymaster-General on 8th May that all Government information policies are weakened by what she described as unfair vitriolic television campaigns? If that were so, have not the Government a legal duty, or does he think that the Minister was exaggerating?

The Prime Minister: I have seen certain reports—I think that they were in respect of the date mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—which did not appear to be entirely accurate; that is, if he was referring to the speech which my right hon. Friend made in Birkenhead. I am not responsible for television, radio or Press accounts of Ministerial statements. It is a fact that sometimes not as much space is given to the more successful statements as is given to matters which are issues of public controversy in this House. This has been seen in the past few weeks.

Mr. Onslow: While the whole House must agree that the question of increased health and spectacle charges is a nostalgic one for the Prime Minister, may I ask him to confirm that if it had been left to him to decide the timing of the statement which was recently made by the


Secretary of State for Social Services, that statement would have been made after, rather than before, the local government elections?

The Prime Minister: There is obviously some nostalgia for the hon. Gentleman in this matter, which I thought had been finally cleared up following a written Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and as a result of certain things that I said on television.
I take full responsibility for the timing. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should time these announcements to be made only after local elections, then I suppose that that would be in accordance with the famous case of the Polaris submarine orders of May, 1963. At that time Glasgow and Merseyside were in for the contract. Glasgow polled on the Tuesday. It was announced on the Wednesday that the contract had gone to Merseyside, before Merseyside polled on the Thursday.

Mr. Boston: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the standards for statements made abroad apply no less to the Opposition than to the Government and that some of the reported statements of the Leader of the Opposition while he was in the United States fell deplorably below the standard expected of him? Would my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Gentleman should have had the statesmanship to refuse to be drawn into anti-British Government remarks of that kind with the aim of exploiting the situation—[Interruption.]—for party political purposes.

The Prime Minister: I think, as I said last week, that it is really a matter of taste and standards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Question asked about the practice of publishing statements by Ministers. I remember that when I was asked a Question last year in a similar television programme—it might have been the same one; I am not sure—about some manœuvre by the right hon. Gentleman and a Motion on the Order Paper about Vietnam I said that I would deal with it when I got home and that, though I was in favour of exporting most things, I was not in favour of exporting our political controversies.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would it not be a good thing if the Prime Minister

adopted my right hon. Friend's standards of telling the truth at home and abroad?

The Prime Minister: In our case, we say the same things both at home and abroad about the facts which this country is facing, facts which we inherited. I certainly do not propose to accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice about accepting his right hon. Friend's standards in respect of what he comes back and tells us that the Shah of Persia said.

Mr. Dobson: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Opposition to co-ordinate statements on major policy, particularly statements made from time to time—bitterly resented by many—by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—as there is no co-ordinating statement of any kind from the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I do not think this is a matter for me; it is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the Opposition. I think there may be an unfair innuendo in what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) suggested in the sense that I have no reason to think that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the statements made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell); it takes him about four months to catch up with him.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath, Business Question.

Mr. Heath: I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that you were calling me to put a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not see the right hon. Gentleman rise. Mr. Heath.

Mr. Heath: As the Prime Minister now has to follow the unusual course of prefacing what are alleged to be major speeches on industrial relations with the remark "if the Press reports he had read were correct", and as in fact the two reports to which he referred were completely incorrect—one, that I was proposing to give nuclear weapons to Germany and, second, what I had said to the Shah—will he now withdraw the comments he made, and withdraw them


in full? If he wants to read what I said about nuclear weapons and the Franco-British deterrent, I can give him a complete transcript of the conference we had in Washington. Second, as I have made absolutely no statement as to what was said by his Imperial Majesty the Shah to me, it was impossible for me incorrectly to have reported him. Will the Prime Minister, therefore, withdraw both his statements?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the question about Persia, I would rather accept the veracity of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as to what was said than the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to what he said in Washington, I acknowledged in my statement that the right hon. Gentleman might have been misreported. He now says that he was misreported. Either he was or he was not. The Opposition Chief Whip had better sort it out with the Leader of the Opposition. I said last Saturday that he might have been misreported. I said that, but a fortnight has gone by without a denial. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must listen to both sides.

The Prime Minister: What The Times said in its report was that the right hon. Gentleman, referring to the proposals of Herr Franz Josef Strauss, said he had put this sort of proposal before and went on to say:
The European partners…
this is the report in The Times which the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly free to repudiate, and if he wanted to do so he should have done it a fortnight ago—
must sooner or later have a nuclear capability.
Since France and Britain have a nuclear capability and since he said that the partners must have nuclear capability, he could not mean Britain or France. Whom then did he mean?

Mr. Heath: As I have said, that report is completely untrue. I have offered the Prime Minister the complete transcript of what I said. Why does the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must listen to both sides.

Mr. Heath: Why does the Prime Minister devote a considerable part of a major speech to something based on a completely false report, as I have told him? Why does he not withdraw now? As to the Shah, the Foreign Secretary cannot know what passed between us because I have not stated in public what passed between us; so will the Prime Minister withdraw that as well?

The Prime Minister: On the second point, the Prime Minister reported—[Laughter.]—the Foreign Secretary reported that the Shah of Iran had said that the right hon. Gentleman must either have misreported or misunderstood him. He was referring to the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. On the first question, I have said that I based my speech last weekend on a matter raised in Britain within a day of his making the statement in the report in The Times. The right hon. Gentleman had a fortnight in which to deny its accuracy. His Central Office went to great lengths to defend him, with some very thin excuses for his other statements. It did nothing to say that he had been misreported. Of course I should be glad to receive the transcript which he has produced and to study it, but he could have denied what was in The Times if he says that he was misreported.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 16TH JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]:
Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on Agriculture on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate relating to the Report of the Select Committee on Coastal Pollution, and the Observations on it, arising on an Opposition Motion.
Motion on the Television Act, 1964 (Additional Payments) Order.
Motion on the County Court Judges (Maximum Number) Order.
TUESDAY, 17TH JUNE—Second Reading of the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Tanzania Bill [Lords.]
WEDNESDAY, 18TH JUNE—Completion of the remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
THURSDAY, 19TH JUNE—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]:
Debate relating to the Dainton Committee Report on National Libraries, Command No. 4028, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Motion on the Selective Employment Payments Variation Order.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
FRIDAY, 20TH JUNE—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 23RD JUNE—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]:
Debate on a topic to be announced later.

Mr. Heath: When will the Government's long-promised Bill on industrial relations be published?

Hon. Members: Not next week.

Mr. Peart: I hope not during Ascot Week. The right hon. Gentleman knows that discussions are going on on this matter. He must wait.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since the Leader of the House announced that no subject has yet been chosen, presumably by the Opposition, for debate on Monday week, would it not be possible for him to make representations through the usual channels that we should debate seriously in this House on that day the subject of race relations, so that the House of Commons may have the opportunity of discussing the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and of other hon. Members?

Mr. Peart: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but he must appreciate that I am not responsible for a topic introduced by the Opposition. That

is a matter for right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a considerable amount of business ahead.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the sympathetic noises made by the right hon. Gentleman on this topic last week, can we now have an assurance that if the result of the Government's favouring the Divorce Reform Bill tonight is to mean the loss of any opportunity for all other Private Members' Measures tomorrow to become law, he will find a day for those Measures?

Mr. Peart: It is true that I gave a sympathetic answer. I said let us wait and see what happens. I repeat that.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to come to the House early next week to make a statement about the provision by the United Kingdom Government to the Government of Libya of a number of Chieftain tanks while, at the same time, the Foreign Office has refused to implement an undertaking with the Israeli Government for a similar provision of Chieftain tanks? Can my right hon. Friend also arrange for an early debate on the subject?

Mr. Peart: In view of what happened yesterday, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) attempted to initiate a debate, I made representations to my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend will be answering Questions on Monday, and there could be an opportunity for a Question to be put to him. It is not usual to make a statement on matters like this, but I will certainly convey the strong views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Amery: Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to say when the Letter of Intent from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the International Monetary Fund will be published and when we will have a chance to debate it?

Mr. Peart: I cannot, say, but as soon as possible a statement will be made and the House informed.

Mr. Hamling: As there is a Motion on the Order Paper today in the name of the right hon. and learned Member


for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) which may be called tonight, and, further, in view of the fact that this is an implied Motion of censure on the Government, will my right hon. Friend see that the Government Whips are on for it?

Mr. Peart: I note carefully what my hon. Friend has said. I am rather surprised at the Motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because one of the signatories was the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who was Leader of the House when the Government provided time for the Third Reading of the Divorce (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the merits of the Motion now.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the continuing anxiety on Clydeside about the precarious financial position of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Will he endeavour to arrange for an early statement on the position to be made?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I will as soon as possible, when the Minister is ready.

Mr. Tuck: Before the Recess, my right hon. Friend gave me hope that there might be time for a short debate on the closure of S. G. Brown's factory at Watford. I appreciate that there has been an Adjournment debate, but only I had the opportunity to make a 15-minute speech and many other hon. Members wanted to make their views known. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this and I know that my hon. Friend raised the matter on the Adjournment. I accept that it is an important matter for the area concerned. I will continue to look at it sympathetically.

Mr. Dudley Smith: In view of the continued rumours about forthcoming economies and changes in B.B.C. sound radio, will the Leader of the House consider providing time for a debate on this subject, so that there can be adequate parliamentary representation from all sides?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give a promise.

Mr. Luard: On previous occasions, my right hon. Friend suggested that he might

be prepared to have a debate on the resources of the sea bed and the discussions now going on at the United Nations on that subject. I wonder whether he can make a further remark about this.

Mr. Peart: I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in this matter. The development of the sea bed and matters arising from oceanography are important. I will bear it in mind.

Dr. Winstanley: Since the answer given by the Leader of the House last week to questions about tomorrow's private members' business, which he has just described as sympathetic, consisted of the words, "Let us wait to see what happens", does not this mean that he must know what will happen? Will he not let us into his confidence?

Mr. Peart: I do not know what will happen; neither does anybody else

Mr. Ogden: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion No. 327 and the Amendment thereto, relating to transplant surgery?
[That this House believes that transplant surgery has a vital and increasingly important part to play in the saving of many hundreds of lives now being lost annually because of the lack of a sufficient number of donors; calls on Her Majesty's Government to initiate the establishment of a national register of donors as a matter of urgency; and invites hon. Members to give a lead by signifying their own willingness to bequeath their own bodies for the purpose of this type of surgery.]
[Line 1, leave out from 'That' to end and add 'the present law in regard to transplant surgery is inadequate and unable to provide protection for either potential donors or potential recipients, places upon the public and the medical profession unnecessary responsibilities and difficulties; is in need of urgent reform; therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to publish a White Paper of its proposals for urgent legislation for transplant surgery'.]
In view of the information which is now available about the conduct of transplant operations in recent weeks, does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is need for an urgent debate?

Mr. Peart: It is important, but there are even more important subjects. I will note it, but I cannot promise time.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the badly-drafted legislation which tends to emerge from all-night sittings, as the Abortion Bill has shown, will the Leader of the House undertake that he will not in future seek to have these controversial social matters discussed late at night and into the early hours of the morning?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give that assurance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend has made a long statement on the business for next week. Is he aware that details of this were given on the 8 o'clock news this morning by the B.B.C.? Can he not, therefore, arrange for the business announcements to be posted up either on a Wednesday evening or a Thursday morning? This would let hon. Members know and would save a lot of the time of the House. It would save us having to impose upon the Leader of the Opposition the task of getting up each Thursday to ask for details of business for the next week.

Mr. Peart: I think that the arrangements are quite satisfactory. I am always glad to hear the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Mr. Biffen: In view of the increasing unlikelihood that there will be any meaningful legislation on industrial relations during the current Session, can the Leader of the House state whether we may expect a statement next week that the Government will now recommence progress on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Peart: No, I cannot, and the hon. Member will understand why.

Mr. Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend recollect his promise to provide time for a debate on the increase in airport navigational charges? Can he say when it will be held?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend knows that I said that I would look at this carefully. He will find an opportunity.

Mr. Frederic Harris: As the Government say that they are neutral about the Divorce Reform Bill tonight, cannot they

possibly, therefore, find time to discuss the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)?

Mr. Peart: I have given my view about that. This is not a matter which affects the Bill as such, but one affecting the timetable of the House. On the merits of the legislation affecting divorce, the Government are neutral.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Can my right hon. Friend arrange for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to make a statement next week on those areas which are to receive help under the Government's proposals arising out of the Hunt Report? There is great concern in Lancashire and elsewhere about this.

Mr. Peart: A statement has already been made. Consultations are going on. I cannot find time next week.

Mr. Crouch: Can the Leader of the House say whether I would be wise to plan to go on holiday on 1st August?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will have a good holiday. Let us wait and see.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Leader of the House, at long last, find time to discuss my longstanding humanitarian Motion about improving the conditions of cars for disabled persons?
[That this House is of opinion that Clause 12 of the regulation relating to disabled persons' cars, which provides that when the child or children of the disabled person reaches the age of 14 years or ceases to depend on the disabled person the car will not be replaced, by substituting a later age which will enable the disabled person to continue his or her care of the relevant child or children.]

Mr. Peart: I applaud my hon. and learned Friend's diligence on this matter, I know that he feels deeply about it, but, I cannot find time next week.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a statement can be expected on Armed Forces' pay, which is long overdue?

Mr. Peart: Very soon.

Mr. Fortescue: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he told the House that he would look carefully at the question of air navigational charges. In fact, he said that we could have a debate. He promised me this before the Recess. Has he revised his view?

Mr. Peart: In reply to my hon. Friend, I repeated this promise. We shall find time.

Mr. Ridley: Can we have a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on Ministerial control, together with the Government's answer, during the current Session? If so, when is it likely to be?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give a precise time. A statement has been made, but it would be difficult to find time for a debate.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: When does my right hon. Friend plan to have debates on Rhodesia and Biafra?

Mr. Peart: We have had debates on these subjects. We cannot have them next week.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STEEL PRICES (N.B.P.I. REPORT)

The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): With permission, I will now make a further statement on the N.B.P.I.'s recent Report on Steel Prices.
On 21st May, I told the House that the Government had accepted the main recommendation in the Report that the price increases proposed by the British Steel Corporation should be reduced to £40 million per annum.
The Government have now completed their consideration of the other recommendations.
The N.B.P.I. recommended that, since competition should make it impossible for private sector companies to exceed the B.S.C.'s prices by any wide margin, the private sector should be allowed to determine their own prices. The Government accept this recommendation for the products covered by the Report, subject to review in the light of experience.
The Government also accept the recommendation that additional charges for small quantity orders should be introduced at 50 per cent. only of what the B.S.C. proposes, but have decided that the full charges should be made from the end of the year.
The N.B.P.I. suggested that the reduction in the total price increase should be spread over 12 products only, but the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council has recommended to me a spread across the board, and this view is supported by both the public and private sectors of the steel industry. The Government agree with the latter course.
The effect will be to reduce the prices proposed by the B.S.C. for carbon steel products by 1¾ per cent., except for tinplate, for which a reduction has already been proposed. The reduction covers sheet steel, which is a key raw material of the motor industry. Arrangements are also being made to see that the shipbuilding industry, which buys its steel under forward contracts, gets a comparable benefit.
The B.S.C. will be making fuller details available as soon as possible.

Sir J. Eden: While we welcome the Minister's decision that the proposed abatement should be across the board, will he make it clear that it is not part of his policy that the Steel Corporation should be required to subsidise the exports of other industries?
Since the right hon. Gentleman has made no mention of the N.B.P.I.'s assertion that the corporation is using its market dominance in some products to keep prices down in those areas where it has to compete with the private sector, will he say what investigations he has made into those charges? Since the whole operation began six months or so ago, what has it cost the corporation, and what will it now mean in terms of increasing borrowing?

Mr. Mason: There is no intention to subsidise exports through the Steel Corporation. The hon. Gentleman must be aware—I gave the figures to the House last time I mentioned the matter—that between 1961 and 1968 the price of steel went up on an average of 10 per cent. In private manufacturing it went up 21 per cent., so it is not that British Steel


is subsidising exports, but no doubt that manufacturing industry is taking advantage of the low prices we have been offering.
I made no mention of cost reduction in my statement, but the corporation told the N.B.P.I. that it had carried out 80 different programmes resulting in a saving of £13 million in 1968–69. But I shall pursue that matter more vigorously with the corporation.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the N.B.P.I. Report. When will the corporation put the prices into operation? What will be the reduction in profits in the present financial year and in a full financial year, assuming that production targets are reached? Will he also say what is the difference the general abatement of about £13 million in a full production year will mean in the light of capital investment envisaged by the B.S.C.?

Mr. Mason: I hope that it will put its prices into operation within the next few days. It is not easy to work out the profits position because the B.S.C. may more vigorously pursue its cost-reduction programmes, and the cyclical trend may maintain itself for many more months yet. Who knows? Therefore, it may be able to gain the benefit of higher sales than were planned hitherto.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman expand a little on the nature of the concession he claims to have given the shipbuilding industry? Is he just saying that for ship plates there will be the same increase as for other items, or is it going any way towards the recommendation in the Geddes Report?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman, representing a shipbuilding constituency, knows that shipbuilders place options for up to two years ahead and on the steel so far ordered for two years—1 million tons—the prices they were to pay on the proposed B.S.C. increase will be reduced by 15s. a ton, so this will be of help to the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. John Mendelson: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the last question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Bright-

side (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) concerning the view of the corporation, if he cannot accept its entire proposals, that there might be difficulty about future investment? Will he couple that with an assurance that the industry will be allowed to be in a position to pay an adequate income to all those who give loyal service to it?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that what is perturbing my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is causing any concern to the corporation. It has managed to get the abatement right across the board and will be able to put its price increases into effect very quickly, whereas if the Government had adopted the N.B.P.I. proposals to give special treatment to the 12 products it would have taken some weeks' to work out its schedules—50 schedules, with hundreds of prices—and delayed it in getting a return. The B.S.C. welcomed the method we adopted. Therefore, it will not materially affect any of the things my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his statutory authority for the decision he has just announced is simply under the Prices and Incomes Act? Does he agree that after 1st January, 1970, the corporation is at liberty to charge whatever it likes for any category of steel it manufactures?

Mr. Mason: As regards the prices and incomes policy, certainly I am within my authority. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, he is sitting on the Committee on the Iron and Steel Bill and knows that borrowing is going ahead for the next five years. The corporation could, if it wished at that time, increase its prices, but if they were major increases they would be subject at least to the early warning system for examination by the Government first.

Mr. Spriggs: Has my right hon. Friend seen The Times report this morning of the May production record of British Steel? What steps is he taking to congratulate the workers and management in the industry?

Mr. Mason: I have seen the Report. Nationalisation, even in its early stages, is beginning to bear fruit. As well as taking


advantage of the cyclical trend, the industry has done remarkably well in spite of the fact that it took over an industry with a return on assets at that time of 1·9 per cent., and is planning to obtain a return as high as 13 per cent. It is up to the House to recognise the major task before the corporation, and how well it is doing so far.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Minister recognise at once that the increase of 10 per cent. in steel prices has been dominated and regulated by the growing volume of iron and steel imports, notably from Western Europe, and that that is where the competition is coming from, to the detriment of our balance of payments?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I tried to tell him this the last time we discussed the matter. During recent months the medium plate price increase in Germany has been 12 per cent. and in Japan 32 per cent. Some overseas nations have been able to take advantage quite quickly of the present rising trend to obtain higher prices, a bigger return and, therefore, more money to invest in the future. We have held the B.S.C. back so far.

Mr. Dalyell: For the benefit of those of us who represent sectors of the commercial motor industry, will my right hon. Friend explain what he said about sheet steel prices for the motor industry?

Mr. Mason: Sheet steel was not included in the N.B.P.I. proposals to apply the reduction only to the 12 products, but it is included in the across-the-board abatement and, therefore, the increase will be less. The industry will benefit to the tune of £1 million a year, and the increase on an average car would be less than 1 per cent.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (COLLECTION)

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make.
The Services Committee, in its Fourth Report, stated that if those hon. Members

who at present collected their Votes from the Post Office were willing to collect their Votes from the Vote Office, a saving of over £1,700 per annum could be made in postal charges. The Services Committee recommended that a change in the present system should be made as soon as possible.
I have accepted the recommendation of the Committee. As from next Monday, 16th June, hon. Members or their secretaries should, therefore, collect their Votes from the Vote Office instead of from the Post Office.

LIBYA (ARMS SUPPLIES)

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for doing what I have to do, but I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Her Majesty's Government propose to sell to Libya Chieftain tanks and Abbott self-propelled guns under an agreement which puts no restriction on Libya regulating the resale of these arms, or their use by third parties, or the loan of such armaments to other parties.
This matter was revealed in today's Press. Yesterday, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised it, but on a different issue—the question of the apparent partisanship of the Foreign Office against the State of Israel.
I raise this point on a quite separate issue. I will not go over the ground covered by the hon. and learned Member, except to say that to adjourn the House now would give an opportunity for either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House now and explain the matter, rather than to do so off the cuff in a trivial manner by answering a Question on Monday.
At a time of grave disturbance in the Middle East, and when there is already far too much suffering in Africa resulting from the indiscriminate distribution of arms, surely restrictions should be placed on the use of these arms and on their resale or loan to other Powers.
This would be in no way abnormal. I remind the House that in these areas


there have previously been restrictions, especially by the United States on its sale of arms—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman must not debate the merits of what he will seek to advocate if his application under Standing Order No. 9 is granted.

Mr. Fraser: It is a perfectly normal requirement that there should be restriction on the use and sale of arms, as happened at the time of Suez, when British arms coming from American sources were not permitted to be used.
It is, therefore, a matter of urgent importance to discuss how this arrangement was made. Arms for self-defence is one thing, but arms indiscriminately sold so as to make the Government appear to be a poor man's Basil Zaharoff is quite another matter, and should be stopped.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to inform me this morning that he would seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.
The right hon. Member the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
that Her Majesty's Government propose to sell to Libya Chieftain tanks and Abbott self-propelled guns under an agreement which puts no restriction on Libya regulating the resale of these arms, or their use by third parties, or the loan of such armaments to other parties".
As the House knows, under revised Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, to the whole issue, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what happened earlier this afternoon,

when I asked the Leader of the House whether the Foreign Secretary would come to the House early next week and make a statement about the matter which has just been under discussion, namely, the provision of Chieftain tanks to the Government of Libya and the refusal of the Foreign Office to implement an undertaking to provide similar tanks to the State of Israel.
My right hon. Friend's reply was that he could not give any guarantee that the Foreign Secretary would come to the House next week for that purpose, but that we could ask Questions on Monday. Unless a Question is put down relating to this subject, obviously we cannot ask Questions.
However, it goes further than that. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that I should be aware that this is not a subject on which the Foreign Secretary can reply to Questions. I am aware of the traditional position, that the provision of arms to certain countries cannot be questioned in the House on the ground that this is a confidential matter.
We are on the horns of a dilemma. How are we to raise this issue if you, Mr. Speaker, will not agree to the proposition that the matter can be debated urgently under Standing Order No. 9? We are unable to raise the matter at all, so far as I can see. We cannot demand that the Government give time for a debate I asked the Leader of the House about a debate and I received a negative reply. Where do we stand on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is in the difficulty which occurs every time an application under Standing Order No. 9 is refused, that if he feels keenly about the issue he must feel that Mr. Speaker has done wrong in refusing to grant the application. But Mr. Speaker is under a duty. All he can do is to carry it out but he can give no reason for what he has done.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. I submit, with respect, that this is an issue that does not concern the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) or what my right hon. Friend has said. This is an issue which concerns the operation of a new Standing Order, and is a genuine point of order.
Before the change in the Standing Order we could not debate matters of this kind, but now that the Standing Order has been changed, case law is being built up by the Chair, and we may find that we shall be as badly off as we were before the change was made because new precedents will have been established.
This is the issue. Will the House of Commons, under the new Standing Order, be able to have some influence on Government policy while that policy is being formed, or will it be no better off in this respect? To this question hon. Members are entitled to an answer, without pressing you, Mr. Speaker, to give the reasons for any particular decision.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is doing exactly what he did yesterday, indirectly challenging the Ruling I have given. The House has forbidden Mr. Speaker to give reasons for his decisions. Every decision to refuse an application under Standing Order No. 9 must disappoint somebody in the House.
If, at the end of a certain time, the House finds that the present method is not achieving the object of the House in changing the Standing Order, which was to remove all kinds of petty restrictions which prevented almost all applications under Standing Order No. 9 from being granted, the House must ask the Select Committee on Procedure to re-examine the whole position. For the moment, I am guided by the procedure laid down under Standing Order No. 9. I hope that we can leave it at that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I mentioned yesterday, an old habit under the previous Standing Order No. 9 was to spend a great deal of time trying to persuade

Mr. Speaker to change his mind without success when he had given a Ruling.

Sir A. V. Harvey: There is no question of asking you to change your mind, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House would accept unreservedly what you have said. However, the House is placed in a delicate position. The Prime Minister of Israel is in this country and we are seriously alarmed at what has happened. Unless the House has a chance to say somehing, and can address itself to the problem, many people could be hurt and could suffer. I would ask the Leader of the House, through you, to say that he will do everything he can to ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a full statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I made representations yesterday to the Foreign Secretary in view of the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). In view of the strong feeling in the House today I will again inform him.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 30TH JUNE

The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

Mr. John Peel.

Mr. Keith Stainton.

Mr. Ronald Bell.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. McBride.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — PROMOTION OF EXPORTS (ESTIMATES COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Sixth Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament relating to the Promotion of Exports and of the Departmental Observations thereon (Command Paper No. 3854).
I commend the Report to the House and take this opportunity to thank the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for their observations upon it and for their outstanding co-operation with myself and members of the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee on both sides of the House. The Committee would also like the sincerest thanks to be made to the officials of the Board of Trade, the Special Services Branch of the Central Office of Information, the Diplomatic Service, those representatives who came from research and consultative bodies, the representatives of export houses, associations, agencies and councils, and those representatives who came on behalf of industry, commerce and a variety of organisations, and who, during the 18 occasions when the Sub-Committee sat, gave their evidence.
I would also like to convey thanks to the many people who wrote to us. On 27th December, 1967, we published in The Times an invitation for comment from industrialists and businessmen. We were very pleased with the response. We had 70 replies and I want to place on record our estimation of their great value and our appreciation of the interest of these trade organisations and private persons, and their welcome response.
One of the special occasions during our examination of the promotion of exports was our visit to Birmingham. I would like to convey thanks to the officials of the Midland Regional Office

of the Special Services Branch, the chairman and members of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. They provided us with a good deal of information, and the best thing that I can say about all of these gentlemen is the fact that we discovered each and every one to be excellent ambassadors of Birmingham and its surrounding area.
It is with a great deal of personal and exceptional pleasure that I finally accord thanks to our Committee Clerk who served the Committee patiently and extremely efficiently, with the diligence characteristic of the standards of the staffing of the House, and, in this case in particular, the Committee Clerks' Office and its Chief Clerk.
There is a tinge of sadness about the Report. It will be noticed that on the Order Paper the name of one member is missing. I would like to say how very sorry we are on the Estimates Committee that we do not have with us the late hon. Member for Chichester, Mr. Loveys, who did excellent work during the whole of the examination. It is a tinge of sadness, but this is an indication of his great value to the Committee.
I have already indicated the wide-ranging kind of work done by the Committee. It deals with the bread and butter of the nation. It has sought to evaluate the amount of Government assistance and the worthwhileness of it in the promotion of exports. It has certainly had available to it a wide area of knowledge, experience and professionalism. The Sub-Committee found men before it who were export-minded, export-poised, resilient, critical, essentially promoters of Britain. We found more when we went, informally, to the B.B.C. Overseas Services offices. This arose from its knowledge of our examination.
A point which concerns me and all members of the Sub-Committee and no doubt everyone in the country, is that against this background of good work and good will the B.B.C. at home often attempts to make opportunities to denigrate Britain. This is usually to be found in the national Press, although there are some exceptions. This succeeds in countering the good work of promoting exports and "knocks" Britain unjustifiably.
Our recommendations are in more constructive fashion. Past experience and progress have produced the conditions for some reshaping, some retooling of the instruments, which we feel to be necessary to obtain for our exporting industries their marginal advantages, increasingly required in a competitive world. The Sub-Committee was satisfied with the response of Government Departments to these recommendations.
I take this opportunity to assert the need for a close and continuing consideration of our proposal that the Export Policy and Promotion Division and the Commercial Relations and Export Divisions of the Board of Trade should be combined into a single Department, having a distinctive name with a distinctivesituation. This would help to improve communications with the outside world and remove some of the confusion in communications. It would establish all the advantages of integration of services, including the use of equipment, the analysis of information, and the economic employment of manpower, comparable to the pace and demand of inquiries as well as the magnitude and the momentum of world trade.
There is too much one-way traffic within Government Departments. Renewed efforts should be made to exchange staff with industry. The barriers of status, training, promotion and restricted opportunities should be broken down to achieve the maximum two-way traffic. The Board of Trade's policy is in line with this aim. Industry should exploit it and encourage young men of ability, with flair and initiative, to follow this lead and do a good job for the country.
I should refer to the Departmental comment in reply to the recommendation on this matter:
It is the policy of the Board of Trade to promote exchanges of staff with industry. In recent years three young men from industry have worked in the Board for a period, of whom two spent their time in the CRE Department.
I was struck not with the naïvete of the Department, but with its complete honesty in telling us that during recent years three young men from industry have worked in it. That is hardly a good response to the effort which has been made to achieve the end-product

of the exercise. I am not questioning the effort, because it is a sunny day and the trade figures have put us all in a good mood; we do not want to be too critical. But it is a matter of great concern that only three young men have come from industry to work at the Board of Trade during recent years. I hope that the situation will improve.
I have made a plea for integration. I hope that it will not be interpreted as meaning that there is a lack of thought about communications. One of our most delightful experiences was to discover the enthusiasm in Departments, and certainly in the Special Services Branch. It must be placed on record that the Export Services Branch has done something in the matter of communications. It is using the telephone and Telex services for industrial contact to very good effect. However, in spite of that, the Sub-Committee made a recommendation, and it is sufficient to say that more widespread use of the Telex services by industry would be welcome.
But efficient communications, with improved integration, are not the total requirement. Export information should be provided with speed, but at a price which people who wish to use it can afford. Speed by itself is not enough in this modern age. What is needed is speed of communication at the right price. Therefore, one of our recommendations to the Board of Trade is that there should be some alternative to the proposed computerised service, which we understand is to replace the Export Services Bulletin.
A related matter comes to mind. I refer to what is known as Call Export Intelligence. In our opinion, this advertising campaign has done its work. It has served a very useful purpose. However, for reasons which we give in the Report, we feel that it should be ended, at least in its present form. We believe that this kind of publicity might be done better through the export services regional officers.
We should like the President of the Board of Trade to feel that, although this might be a peripheral matter within the context of communications and information, the Sub-Committee considered this matter with special care. Although, in the reply to the recommendation, it is pointed out that previous experience has


been discouraging, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has indicated that he will consider this problem afresh. Perhaps when he replies to the debate he will give us his thoughts on this point.
The tenor of our Report is getting the best value for money. At one time political parties—and I will not mention names—put themselves before the public, saying, "We stand for getting value for money". That is now not the monopoly of any party. We live in an age in which we shall stand or fall on our ability to make the best use of money. Expenditure on export promotion is not a yardstick of real effort. It is certainly not a yardstick of efficiency. We should prove insistently and persistently the measure of export improvement related to the costs of promotion. Government aid is not the test. There should be a reciprocating response from industry.
There is evidence—for instance, from Eastern Europe—that British firms do not employ as many overseas salesmen as firms in other countries. There is need for greater emphasis to be placed on the selling of goods by agents and salesmen with know-how, expertise and salaries which reflect their competence.
My main point is that there is no point in spending public money on the promotion of exports if we allow ourselves to get into a mental lock and not consider the other parts of the business. I suggest that one of the main things to be considered is the reciprocating attitude of industry itself. We must have the men on the ground in the right place, men of the right calibre being paid the right salaries.
British firms often ask for incentives to make it worth while to export. In many respects they seem to fail to understand that long-term growth depends, in their own interests, on exporting their products. Once a politician poses that pertinent consideration private industry will not question it, but one must, nevertheless, within the general debate, counter it with something which affects the decision to promote or not to promote exports.
One must recognise that abroad one finds examples of unorthodox commercial activities. These can be very discouraging to the small or medium-sized firm which, within the climate of expanding world trade, is considering the possi-
bility of trading beyond our shores. I put this to the House now as a matter of fact, and perhaps later I might develop it a little to illustrate another related matter.
We can counter practices adopted by countries abroad by swinging back to our own achievements. Our major competitors are winning orders, and winning them on merit. Our industries, too, are winning orders on merit, and this they certainly must do. They should not allow themselves to diminish their activities by over stating the difficulties of unorthodox practices adopted in countries abroad.
The Government have a duty in this connection. It is no good saying to industry, "Go out and win markets on your merits". Nor is it any good saying, "We know that there are these unorthodox practices, but we can get over them by playing the game according to the commercial rules, or according to the established principles of G.A.T.T.", unless, at the same time, we ask the Government to recognise that these unorthodox practices exist. If we are to play the game according to the rules of G.A.T.T., everybody else in the team must also play according to those rules. If somebody in the team commits a foul, there should be a referee to blow the whistle.
We are all in the same boat. I hope that I shall not even once try to make a party political point, because I am dealing with a problem which affects us all. The Government, and their predecessors, have been very gentlemanly in dealing with people abroad who break the rules, and I suggest that if we are to give industry its head, if we are to respond to the intiative of industry itself, the time has come to keep a watchful eye on the trading practices of some countries, because many of them are not respecters of the commercial rules of the business.
I do not want to deviate from the Report, or from the principles to which I have applied myself, but I believe that it is legitimate to use our imports as levers to promote exports. Our importers should take every opportunity they can to use their purchasing power to influence foreign buyers in favour of British goods. Japan, and to some extent Western Germany, are not reticent about adopting that view, and they are doing so with considerable success.
We have a remarkable amount of purchasing power in the world, yet of all the nations in the world we are saddled with perhaps the most aching import problem. We have turned our backs on import quotas. We have tried to use legislation to deal with import controls, and we have E.F.T.A. looking at us very angrily indeed. We are large buyers in the world, and I repeat that this provides us with a useful lever to enable us to say to the rest of the world, "We shall buy from you, but there is an export consideration here, too".
Some of our undertakings are the largest employers of labour in Europe. Three examples which spring to mind are the C.E.G.B., the British Steel Corporation—at Question Time today there was a reference to the amount of iron-ore coming into this country—and the G.P.O. Why cannot these large buyers, who negotiate contracts involving tremendous sums of money, and who have strong links abroad, award contracts with some positive assessment of the import consequences? Is it wrong to do that? Someone might say that it is morally wrong. This is an interesting argument, but it can hardly be said that it is economically wrong, because what I am talking about basically is the elementary principle of barter. It cannot be wrong on that ground. In spite of bilateral and multilateral agreements, there are nations in the world which adopt the principle which I have suggested.
We live in a densely-populated island, with problems which are unique in the world. We are bent on progress and on technological advance. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said the other day, we have a great population problem. The working population is now having to support a larger retired population, and a larger child and youth population, than ever before. It is a pity that our ingenuity, our ability, and our skills, are to some extent depressed because we are not using what might be called the modern practices adopted by other nations which leapfrog over the G.A.T.T. to obtain for themselves advantages from their import trade.
I have asked whether what I have suggested is wrong, and I must, therefore, give specific examples to make my case.

The French use their purchasing power to support their manufacturers. I know of a British company which was interested in a French contract. It was told that the French authorities had ordered all firms working on Government contracts to delay placing orders.
A letter which the British firm received from its potential French contractors said:
We are sorry to go no further with your proposal. In fact, a French contractor is going on with these electronic generators problems and our State customer requires us to order from that firm.
That is the kind of competition that we are up against.
There is a second aspect of the problem. We are all vitally interested in East-West trade. How many times have Ministers come and gone from East to West, having signed statements and having talked about encouraging East-West trade? One supposes that on returning to their offices they have thought, "We have done a first-class job for Britain." But their hands are tied because to some extent we are made prisoners by the operation of commercial practices in the world over which we have no control.
I refer to the restrictive nature of the list of strategic items embargoed for Eastern Europe. I suspect and have no reason to doubt—I should be prepared to withdraw this statement if it were shown to be wrong—that certain items on the restricted list are removed only when there are American manufacturers ready to supply them.
There are two interesting examples. One relates to the import-lever principle to promote exports, and the other to the commercial chains, the links of which are taken out when it suits the United States. What is the point of having industry, skill and ingenuity second to none in the world if there are people who, for one reason or another, will not put our goods in their shop window, do not want to be our customers, or, as soon as they become our customers are wooed away by somebody else?
I hope that the Government, in their talks in E.F.T.A., with the E.E.C. and in the G.A.T.T. Round in relation to East-West trade will not be too deferential. We have heard for far too long the clap-trap that Great Britain is a


second-rate Power. We have gone on long enough talking ourselves into lower and lower divisions. We are not second-rate. We have the armoury and we have a right to use it.
There is one method by which small and medium-sized firms can be helped to grow. Wherever possible British firms producing complementary goods should band together and employ overseas agents to sell goods when, individually, it is beyond their means to do so. This is a vital and major point. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade would like to make some reference to this work of the Group Export Representative Unit.
The Sub-Committee, and, of course, the Estimates Committee, in its wide-ranging examination of the promotion of exports, has become aware of the many avenues of approach directly related to Government aid and industrial initiative in the great problem of increasing our earnings abroad. The technique and expertise required, as well as the hallmarks of confidence arising from our native skills, good workmanship, design, price, our after-sales services—I realised when abroad that after-sales service is a major matter which we should persuade our industries to improve—and our good delivery dates, which also could be improved, must be complemented with the ability to sell and the techniques of selling.
We in the Sub-Committee looked at this point and came to the conclusion that a shop window, in the form of a national exhibition centre, was of paramount importance. Not only should we be in a position to have a greater number of international exhibitions, but we should have a show room for the vast range of British goods which we can produce. Not only is the sales potential important, but foreign currency from visitors would be an immediate gain. There would certainly be a saving of currency which otherwise would have been spent by British buyers abroad. That would be a useful consideration.
What is clear is that Britain cannot afford to become a non-exhibiting country. I urge the Government and industry to grasp this project with courage. The clarion call should be: invest in Britain. All the ingenuity of British skills, our high standards and the creative impulses

of the nation should be allowed to flower in the setting of a show centre where visitors to Britain could experience the combination of achievement and comfort, of business and leisure, of exhibition and conference, of accessibility and pleasure. Putting the pitch right at home and providing a good wicket for our industrial batsmen will not get us to the top of the export league tables. The away games have to be watched.
Our Diplomatic Service should consider what further improvements could be made abroad. We require high-calibre locally-engaged staff overseas, with improved conditions and status; our commercial officers should have better ladders of opportunity, promotion and reward. This could have a great influence on our trade in the world. But if they are not the right kind of people with the right kind of experience they could have the opposite effect. During recent years the Diplomatic Service has attended to this aspect. I know from the evidence which was given to the Sub-Committee, and certainly from my own visits abroad, that there has been a considerable improvement in the commercial offices.
The Board of Trade and the British National Export Council should examine another important matter. They should seek wherever possible to send delegations from suitable trade associations and other bodies to overseas conferences to obtain information and to assist in the marketing of exports. There may be difficulties, but they could be overcome and a good response from the Board of Trade would be valuable.
I suggest, also, that a close watch should be kept on all conferences abroad relating to industry, trade and commerce so that benefits can be searched out which may produce some unexpected dividends that, can be of advantage to trading organisations. As a result, a new avenue for tapping markets beyond our shores may be made available to them.
It might be convenient now to draw attention to some other specific areas for export promotion. However, the last thing that I want to do is give the impression that we do not have contacts abroad. The contrary is the case. We have a situation in which the Board of Trade, the British National Export Council and other bodies involved are


doing an excellent job in sweeping the world with activity. During the financial year 1967–68, the revised Estimate for trade fairs was of the order of £4,363,300.
For the British Overseas Engineering Bureau, the Estimate was £35,000. For the United Kingdom Railway Advisory Service, it was £35,000, and the Estimate for trade missions was £20,000. On trade fairs alone, excluding the British National Export Council's valuable contribution, the Board of Trade's expenditure has risen from £516,000 in 1962–63 to £3,563,800 in 1968. Over five years, that is a measure of the improvement in the attention given to world fairs, trade missions and the like.
An analysis of the Overseas Trade Fairs Directorate's events for last year shows that there were 175 joint ventures covering Common Market countries, E.F.T.A. countries, Eastern Europe, North and South America and a number of other countries in the Southern Hemisphere. In addition, there were 16 events, including British pavilions, British fairs and British weeks held, and the number of store promotions totalled 2,016.
Without developing the point too much, the record export figures achieved are a reflection of improved export promotion. But the Report can be misleading if we take our conclusions from it to far. For example, world trade increased by 12 per cent. in 1968 both in volume and value compared with 5 per cent. in 1967. Some of our gains follow the trend of expansion, but we must not assume that our share of world trade has improved all that much. Nor should we assume that exports will not fall should levels of world trade diminish during the next few months, particularly in 1970. Perhaps a pithy sentence would pinpoint what I am trying to say. The advantages of devaluation and expanding world trade are not permanent. In spite of the trend, which is healthy and a great relief, we must bear in mind that complacency is not yet a privilege in which we can afford to indulge. In that context, our Report demands further drive and vigilance.
I have paid tribute to the level of trade fairs and the like, but I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will

bear in mind that some of us are disappointed that no major promotions for 1970 have yet been announced. I make that point because, when I talked about trade fairs being a factor in the success of export promotion, it is important for the impetus to be maintained. If I may give an example, during the time that we were sitting, arangements were currently taking place for British weeks this year in Vienna and Japan, with which the British National Export Council is associated. If I may give a measure of their impact, the need for keeping up the impetus will become clear.
For the week in Japan, 15 simultaneous exhibitions have been organised, and approximately 1,000 manufacturers have been out there. Manufacturers of electronics, scientific instruments, cars, machine tools, toys and gift ware are all represented, together with many others. Earlier, I said to our industrialists that they can win on merit. Our exports to Japan have increased by 26 per cent this year, and our trading balance with that country is a favourable one. Including invisibles, it shows a surplus of about £50 million. That is a measure of our success in a highly competitive market but publicity, communications and the success which can come from having trade fairs and British Weeks abroad are relevant to the point that I am trying to make.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having had the good fortune to be on the recent I.P.U. visit to Japan and having seen much of people in our embassy, may I comment on the extremely high calibre and excellent work done by our people there who are dealing with these matters? It reflects most favourably on the work of the Foreign Office, first, that the British Embassy should contain a higher proportion of Japanese speakers than any other embassy, and, secondly, that their work should be of such a high order.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is a very useful intervention, because it confirms what I tried to indicate originally. We cannot afford to allow the assumption to get abroad that the British Departments, particularly the Foreign Office, are anything other than highly efficient. All that I can say as a follow-up is that far too often we are unmindful of the good work that they do abroad.
If the efforts outlined in our Report are projected, they will produce large dividends. Britain's prosperity is involved, and I suggest that any policies or attitudes militating against the maximum advantages of those efforts should be reviewed urgently. I fear, for example, that some of our fiscal measures may be damaging to the promotion of exports. In my opinion, all exports should be taken out of the present squeeze. Tax relief measures should be introduced for the marketing elements of our export trades. The Germans and Japanese do it.
If the Government say that it is contrary to G.A.T.T., I must ask again how long we are to observe every line of that Agreement. Australia operates tax reliefs for her personnel abroad to the extent of 4s. in the £. This principle should be applied so as to encourage better representation abroad for British firms on a permanent basis because, compared with that of many other countries, our representation is still very thin on the ground.
There is a tendency, when thinking of the promotion of exports, to think only in terms of visible exports and to relate these to the levels of imports and then to derive a state of happiness or unhappiness, of confidence or of uncertainty, from the resultant balance of trade. But I suggest that there is a case for taking more into account the value to this country of invisible exports. I have been a Member of the House for five years and I have not found this to be a matter which appears to be discussed too much. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not got a monopoly on this subject, either—[Interruption.] Nevertheless, trying my best not to be deviated, and coming back to the theme of the totality of export benefits which I am trying to develop, during 1968–69 our invisible earnings were £3,500 million—an increase of 18 per cent. on the 1967–68 figure—representing—and we cannot dodge this—40 per cent. of Britain's foreign exchange earnings.

Mr. David Howell: The hon. Gentleman is saying some things about invisible exports with which I warmly agree. Will he agree that it would vastly help the point that he is making and the cause of invisible exports if the Board of Trade could see its way to publishing monthly the net invisible

earnings in the private sector separate from the Government's contribution—or non-contribution—in this sphere?

Mr. Leadbitter: The President of the Board of Trade will have noted that comment, so there is no need for me to answer it.
Visible and invisible earnings, therefore, within the context of the national welfare, are complementary to each other over the whole commercial sphere. Our commercial transactions place this country in a state of actual surplus. The point I want to develop is that, commercially, Britain pays her way.
In 1968, our foreign income was of the order of £10,000 million—a higher rate of foreign earning power per head of population than anywhere else in the world.

Sir Douglas Glover: Hear, hear.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear". We have been so used to looking at each other across the Floor. I hope that when speaking of the policy of this Government he will also say "Hear, hear".

Sir D. Glover: Hear, hear.

Mr. Leadbitter: We cannot have a success story, on the one hand, and criticise it, on the other. I am sure that the next time we have a specific debate on economic policy the hon. Gentleman and I will recall this moment and will seek to pursue a line with which his whole party will have to agree that the Labour Government have done a damned good job for Britain.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman must not get too carried away with his own eloquence. Because I interject "Hear, hear" does not mean that I have no criticisms.

Mr. Leadbitter: No, but this may arise out of the age gap.
There is a case for taking more into account the value to this country of the relative importance of both visible and invisible exports. I only note—it is not within the strict terms of the debate—that one of our difficulties is that our outlay in foreign currency on overseas defence and aid purposes is greater than


that of any other country in the world, except America.
The reason I mention this is not to get out of order, but to demonstrate that, commercially and industrially, we are paying our way in the world. Basically, we have a problem which we inherited out of defence commitments and overseas commitments of various kinds. Put in that context, we can claim that Britain certainly is nowhere near, as some Press editors have tried to claim, being on her knees.
Clearly, the record does not demonstrate a failure of our commercial and industrial economy to hold our own against world competition. Our need for more success is just as clear, and the ability is there. I argue not from failure, but more in the direction of providing a further stimulant. We must maximise our opportunities.
I have tried to deal with the Report objectively. I have referred to the Board's response to our recommendations. At some points, I have been critical, but I hope constructive. Some useful suggestions have been posed, and I have concluded on a note evaluating our total commercial standing.
My theme throughout springs from a conviction of confidence in Britain and faith in the capacity of our commercial, industrial and Governmental institutions to pursue the aims of integration, harmonisation and dynamism to ensure the lasting greatness and influence of this nation. From today's trade figures and trading trends, therefore, I am encouraged to conclude with a brief yardstick of achievement and progress to round off this theme.
I refer to the export figures for certain manufactures in the period 1964 to 1968. Textile machinery. The value of our exports in 1964 was £66·8 million. In 1968, the value of exports of such machinery was £101·3 million. Road motor vehicle exports. In 1964, the figure was £538·4 million. In 1968, it was £659·6 million.
I can recall some very serious debates in the House on aircraft. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should listen to the figures. It is worth while pausing to allow this one to sink in. In 1964, exports of aircraft were £43·5 million. In 1968, they

had risen to £135·2 million. This is a wonderful achievement. We can at least say that confidence in our policy has not been shaken and, at the same time, we can compliment the personnel and the industrialists in the aircraft industry on their remarkable achievement.
Exports of ships and boats in 1964 amounted to £30 million. In 1968, they had increased to £77·9 million. Scientific instruments, including medical, optical measuring and controlling instruments. In 1964, the value of exports was £62·7 million. In 1968, it was £100·2 million Clothing. In 1964, exports amounted to £43·8 million. In 1968, they reached £83·7 million.
I come from a part of the United Kingdom where, during possibly the whole of my life so far, we have known nothing but the vicissitudes of trade which affected us more in the climate of poverty than during the odd spasms of improvement in any of the working sections of the area.
Before I finish, I feel that I must say to those charged with the heavy responsibility of decision-making involved in the question of exports and imports—and I address myself not only to the President of the Board of Trade, but to the Officers of this House and to all who can hear me—how grateful I am as a Member of Parliament that, in my part of the country, I am able to talk about a story which can bring hope where many years ago, and even in recent years, there did not appear to be a glimmer of hope. We have had a difficult time trying to convince people who have, unfortunately, for 5d. got hold of the Northern Daily Mail and the Daily Express in these areas and thereby all the misinformation, that all our recent struggles have been to close the gap between the decline of our basic industries and the establishment of new ones.
I hope that no hon. Member, for the sake of a small party point, will flout the figures I have given, or will go against the tide of totality of success in commerce that we have in the world. I hope that no hon. Member will seek to charge that Her Majesty's Government are failing the people, because the contrary is the case. The reality of the position is that, in a democracy such as ours, no matter what parties there were, the same problems would exist. During


four years, the Government have done remarkable things for the country and I am proud to have had the privilege of asking the House to take note of the Report. It does not provide all the answers or all the information. It is just the result of a job of work. I think that I have perhaps caught the right term. A job of work well done, no matter where it is done in this country, is, in my opinion, the best guarantee of the nation's success.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I omitted at the start of the debate to tell the House that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so perhaps succeeding speakers will be a little more brief.

5.13 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: The House owes a great debt to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Lead-bitter) and his colleagues who spent so many hours studying the evidence we are now debating. Indeed, I think that all of them deserve a prize for the work they have done. Perhaps those of us who have read every word of the Report also deserve a prize, because it is a voluminous document.
It is quite by chance that this debate falls on one of the days in the year when the trade figures are published. The Government must have had a pang or anxiety when they realised that exports would be discussed, for the figures might have turned out to be bad. However, all of us wish to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the turn in the figures. They really are very welcome.
We are delighted, of course, that the visible deficit has fallen and even more delighted, I think, to note—I believe that this is the first time it has been published—the upward surge in the invisible surplus. I have in my hand the published monthly figures, which show that the invisible surplus during the first quarter of this year averaged no less than £47 million a month. That is a staggering figure, because the invisible deficit as published by the Board of Trade is struck after deducting from the gross invisible surplus the full weight of Government overseas expenditure.
So what we are being told is that invisibles are now running at a gross surplus—or were doing so in the first quarter—in excess of £1,000 million a year, which, after deduction of roughly £500 million of Government overseas expenditure, yields an invisible surplus of about £47 million a month.
But I think that many hon. Members, even members of the Select Committee, will agree that an invisible surplus of that order has been achieved despite the Government and that it will be ironic if Ministers, who did not even during the Budget debate refer to invisibles, should find the country being rescued by the astonishing success of these invisible traders. I would not like it to be thought that we do not welcome, also, the change in the fortunes of the visible account. We hope that it will not be like those changes which came in November last year and January this year, which proved to be succeeded by bad months afterwards, but that they will be the beginning of a sustained recovery.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that our unusual surplus on the tourist account, due to the £50 travel allowance, has also been achieved despite the Government?

Sir K. Joseph: The scale of the growth in tourist earnings is because this country is a bargain shopping area due to devaluation.

Mr. W. Howie: Am I right in supposing that invisibles have come to the aid of the economy in every year since 1807?

Sir K. Joseph: Certainly. We are an invisible surplus and a visible deficit country. But invisibles now are exceeding what it was estimated they would achieve by a substantial amount. Indeed, we appear to be in 1969 where it was hoped to be in 1971–72.
I ask the forgiveness of the House because I must leave to fulfil a longstanding committment at about six o'clock. I shall be away for about an hour. But I think that I can keep what I have to say relatively brief. The view on this side of the House, and probably that of a number of hon. Members opposite, is that export success is a function of efficiency and enterprise and that, if the Government, of


whatever party, free the traders of this country to exercise their enterprise and efficiency and stimulate them to do so, then they will produce satisfactory trading results.
Witnesses repeated again and again to the Sub-Committee that their first need from the Government was not a broad improvement in export promotion, but a stable and rising home market, the encouragement of a tax system which takes incentive into account and intelligent Government policy at home. Those are the basic essentials and export promotion can only provide a reinforcement and help.
We believe that, of these background encouragements, the most indispensable is that of personal incentives and, therefore, we put tax reform and the cutting of public expenditure at the top of the conditions needed to encourage our traders and make them successful. Management is improving rapidly. Enormous talent is being used and is waiting to be used in our management echelons. The job of government it seems to us is to see that, through a combination of tax reform, competition and company law, the sleepers, where they still exist in company boardrooms, give place to the thrusters. There are more and more thrusters directing our companies, but some are directed by sleepers. The replacement of the sleeper by the thruster is the most immediate need for our balance of payments. Therefore, we hope that the President of the Board of Trade will tell us something about the Government's tax policy.
The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if we say again that we hope that he will do what he can to relieve the invisible traders of selective employment tax. We hope that he at least is fighting inside the Government to get personal taxation reformed, so that it is not so desperately discouraging at the margin. We ask him, in particular, for a progress report on the inquiry into the value-added tax announced by the Chancellor in his Budget speech in April, 1968.
I now turn to the work of the Sub-Committee. After commending very much its diligence and comprehensiveness, I am surprised that its members never seemed to ask themselves or, systematically, their witnesses, who does the

exporting of the country and where the scope for increased visible exporting mainly lies. Unless the Select Committee and, particularly, the Government, identify the area where there is most scope, the promotion services cannot be fashioned and shaped to perform their function most effectively.
As far as I know, no one knows the current answer to this question, but I have the figures for 1966, when 140 companies were responsible for over £5 million of direct exports, totalling over £2,700 million, or more than 50 per cent. of our total invisible exports f.o.b. I should like to break the figure down. These are direct exports, and, in addition, many of the companies were, of course, responsible for a large volume of overseas earnings which came back to the credit of this country in remitted or unremitted profits.
No fewer than 11 companies, in 1966, each was responsible for no less than £50 million of direct exports, totalling over £1,000 million. We could all name most of them if we set our minds to it. Then, 24 companies exported directly between £20 million and £50 million; 105 exported between £5 million and £20 million, 350 exported between £1 million and £5 million and about 1,900 companies exported between £100,000 and £1 million. These 2,400 companies exported between them £4,000 million directly in 1966, or about 80 per cent. of our total visible direct exports that year.
The question which we must ask ourselves and which the Government particularly must ask themselves is: where is the scope? The giants, presumably, are self-motivated. They are sophisticated, powerful, well-managed. They need no encouragement. They need the removal of certain obstacles, such as the restrictions on foreign exchange, which even I, in full enthusiasm, cannot promise that we shall totally free, but where is the main scope? Is it in the middle-sized companies or in the smaller companies? Until we identify this scope, we cannot sensibly discuss effective promotion services.
There is evidence in the Report that the big visible exporters use the services to some extent. But they have their own very sophisticated service departments. Certainly, big companies need no encouragement and exhortation. The


medium-sized companies, exporting £1 million or more each year, need the services very much but not much education or exhortation. The smaller companies need both the services and the encouragement and education.
There is a gulf also between those companies which are highly sophisticated in marketing and those which are still production orientated rather than market-orientated. We note the evidence of one witness that the difficulties of an exporter tend to increase—this is common sense, when it is pointed out—with the number of overseas markets which it tries to penetrate. The evidence is that the Board of Trade and the B.N.E.C. are primarily geared to help the smaller company, but is this the area in which they can be most effective? I do not see that the Report asks or answers this question and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views today.
For instance, the campaign "Call Export Intelligence" was beamed at those already exporting but looking for new markets and those entering the export field—in other words, at the bottom of the size bracket. The campaign has not been proving successful and has been withdrawn. On the other hand, the C.B.I. and the Sub-Committee itself identified the scope, it appears from the Report, mainly with the 2,000 to 3,000 companies already exporting who, in their view, could do more. But there is no evidence in the Report to substantiate that point of view. It is just an assertion, and, if the Government believe that it is correct, we should be addressing ourselves, in discussing the promotion services, predominantly to those 2,000 or 3,000 companies.
We would say that it was the Government's primary job to make it in the interests of those companies to do more exporting by reforming the tax system and, possibly, introducing a value-added tax and other measures. I am sure that everyone will agree that it is no good the Government and their agents stimulating the odd, one-off export effort. There was a very vivid phrase in Paragraph 396 of the Report, talking of the "commercial commando raid", in the particular case, into Sweden, after the Stockholm Exhibition. We would all agree that it is for the Government to encourage, in the self-interest of the firm and the

people concerned, sustained export effort and not the commercial commando raid.
Here, we should like to ask the Government to take careful note of the evidence of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, because—this is what we want them to accept—there is the closest possible link between what we call visibles and what we call invisibles. The I.P.A. says that most manufacturing companies with a good product try at first to sell their surplus output in one or more markets abroad. For that, they need certain services, but, as a company manufacturer gets bigger or better and comes to want to supply more and more of the market of another country, it can no longer succeed by exporting its own surplus output. It has to begin to invest in the overseas market itself. So, gradually, the export effort which is reflected in visibles becomes translated, in a free and efficiently working economy, into the overseas investment yielding invisible benefit to this country.
That transition from the visible benefit to the invisible benefit is frustrated by the restrictions on foreign exchange expenditure imposed by the present Government. Of course we admit that, in the situation into which this country has been led, there probably have to be some of these restrictions, but we would at least ask the Government to recognise the damage to the visible-invisible nexus, the complete earning potential of this country, which is imposed by the arbitrary ban on foreign exchange investment.
There was a comment which should be read and re-read, on page 109 of the report, by the C.B.I., which pointed out the absurd illogicality of a Government who, through E.C.G.D., take pride in allowing ever-longer credit terms for the same visible goods which they would not allow, on equally good and perhaps better credit terms, to be produced in the same market overseas. We are shackling our traders by our present policies and there is the strongest possible case, therefore, for a relaxation in the discretion to use foreign exchange.
We regret that the Select Committee did not identify where there is the most scope for increased exports, and we hope that the Government will do this identification for us. The promotion,


which can be properly defined only when we know the answer to this question, is largely a matter of market intelligence, education and indispenable services like insurance. To provide these promotion services there is a complex of interrelated activities such as posts throughout the world, the Export Services Branch of the Board of Trade and other Government Departments. We have B.N.E.C., E.C.G.D., the C.B.I. Chambers of Commerce and a mass of others.
We acknowledge gladly the tributes which were paid to all these services by the Sub-Committee and the witnesses which appeared before it and we acknowledge that these services have all been much improved during the 'sixties, including the years when the present Government have been in power. We also acknowledge the great efforts, of all staff, professional and honorary, that have been involved.
The Select Committee points out that if it were possible to start from scratch with a clean sheet it would organise everything differently. However, it advises the Government not to interfere with processes which are working tolerably well by reorganising them now.
This debate is unfortunately timed, because the Val Duncan Committee has evidently handed its report to the Government. We would, therefore, like to hear from the President of the Board of Trade whether and when he will publish it. Without this report it would be presumption on our part to try to assess whether the posts abroad are commercially-minded enough. Obviously, many of them are, but there are difficult questions such as secondment and local enrolment which must be considered.
B.N.E.C. was set up to encourage and not to do. It is difficult for such a body not to topple over occasionally into exhortation, although I appreciate that it will try not to do that. Perhaps we should see the task of B.N.E.C. as providing supporting services; receiving and despatching missions, dispensing aid were necessary and, above all, educating newcomers to exports in the best practices.
I have heard it suggested that B.N.E.C. should provide voluntary teachers from the experienced sectors of industry to

advise the beginners in the export sphere or run seminars to this end. All Governments tend to make too many calls on successful businessmen and the result is that the very best of our performers are distracted from doing their primary job, which is to serve their own markets, workers, consumers and investors.
It is notable that so many men of first-class ability give their time to B.N.E.C., but, as McKinsey is said to have told them, B.N.E.C. members must be appraised not on their conscientiousness but on their performance. The comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee at one of the proceedings is noteworthy, when he said that this was a private enterprise body publicly financed and, therefore, publicly controlled. Is it in the ultimate the most flexible animal since it is neither flexible like private enterprise nor totally official like a public body?
May there not perhaps be an argument for establishing a fact-gathering educational body—mission receiving, mission sending and grant dispensing—completely outside the Government? Might it not be more flexible, sensible and commercial to place inside such a body the services of the Export Services Branch, E.C.G.D. as well as B.N.E.C? In asking the question I admit that I have not found an answer. It would be interesting to know if the Government have considered this possibility.
If there were such a single body, serving all these multiple purposes, with the flexibility and commercial attitude that a private enterprise body could have, we might have some clearer leadership in this sphere. For example, we note from the answer to Question 335 that one of the main C.B.I. witnesses said, commenting on British Weeks:
…It was an absolute miracle…that anything worked.
He said that the concept worked, but that it was a miracle that it did. He pointed out that there was no one person in charge of anything, and that there was a mass of complicated ad hoc activities which crossed public/private frontiers.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is only one point of view. The chairman of the British National Export Council told me last


night that his council attached great importance to British Weeks.

Sir K. Joseph: I mention this point only because there may be some confusion in the minds of exporters, with the result that there may be unnecessary ignorance of the possibilities for profit in certain markets overseas. Perhaps a single body might be able to overcome these difficulties.
In the light of the slanting comments which appear throughout the Report, it would be interesting to know whether the Government are considering reviewing relations between the official and unofficial bodies in export promotion and if they are considering the provision of guidance on markets as opposed to products.
The right hon. Gentleman might say how other countries, our rivals, deal with these problems. I do not want to give our rivals too much of a puff, but we are inquisitive about the alleged success of, for example, J.E.T.R.O. in Japan and the Italian Institute of Export. The sub-Committee did not inquire into these matters, although it referred to them. It merely paid an indirect tribute to the services that are provided in Norway and Australia, but with respect to those countries, they are not world markets on an international trading scale like Japan, Italy and ourselves.
I hope that the Government have taken careful note of the evidence of the British Export Houses Association, because when one considers what is happening in Japan with J.E.T.R.O., and developments elsewhere, one is reminded of the predominant position in, for example, Japan of the merchant houses. We in this country have pioneered the merchant houses and there are great British merchant houses in the Far East. About 20 per cent. of our invisible trade passes through merchant houses hands.
The British Export Houses Association claims that it needs help overseas and not at home. Why have our merchant houses achieved such success in the East but not in the West? Why was their practice so successful in China but not nearly as successful in, for example, South America. There are merchants in that part of the world, but they are not nearly as successful.
The Report spends a considerable time on the subject of market research and the needs of individual firms in this connection. We are glad that the Government recognise the need for market research and that in July of last year a sum was provided to help firms in market research overseas. The President of the Board of Trade allotted £75,000 for 1968–69. How much of that has been taken up and has the right hon. Gentleman any further information on the market research side?
We note that market research needs to be done for firms and that it does not have to be done always at a Government post or by the E.S.B. It can be done by commercial agencies. One witness said that the Economist Intelligence Unit and other research bodies might well provide the sort of market research which posts cannot be expected to provide if the Government think that that is right.
I summarise the questions which I hope the President of the Board of Trade will try to answer. We want to know, as the hon. Member for the Hartlepools said, what the present position is about the National Exhibition Centre. Secondly, we should like to know something about the present fortunes of the Overseas Marketing Corporation. Thirdly, we should like to know whether the £100,000 consultants' fund has now been unlocked, or whether it is still tied up because of discussions. We hope to hear from the right hon. Gentleman about the Government's standing in the inquiry on value-added tax. We should like to hear where the Government think that there is much scope for export growth and where the main target for B.N.E.C. and the Export Services Branch should be.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government have any intention of inquiring into all these inter-related services to focus them on the identified target and to reduce what may have been confusion in industry. We recognise the great value of this Report and we hope that this debate and the President of the Board of Trade's speech will build upon it.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. W. Howie: I did not have the pleasure of being a member of the Sub-Committee. I am, therefore, extremely grateful to its members and for


their very full Report. I am grateful to its chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), for his exhaustive survey and comments on the Report. To some extent he did not leave the rest of us much to say, but I have no doubt we shall try our best to comment on those parts of the Report which he left out.
The Report shows, and his speech underlined, the great amount of work which is being done by the Government through a number of agencies to assist exporters to provide appropriate machinery. They show that considerable success has been achieved, partly by industry through its own efforts and through the assistance which the Government have been able to give. Despite all this, we are faced with a continuing balance of payments problem. It is improving and today's figures are encouraging, I gather, but the improvement is still fairly slow. This means that although the United Kingdom exports more, I believe, per head of the population than almost every other country, we have to do even more.
In passing, since we are talking about exports, I should mention that part of the gap in the balance of payments is due to imports. While exports are responding and have responded extremely well, I am not sure that our import performance has responded in quite the same way. Our continued failure totally to close the gap has suggested that the President of the Board of Trade might look at the entire question of more direct control of imports. Import controls have been rejected for a number of reasons, and many of those reasons are apparently sound. At the same time, the continued appetite which the country shows for imports hints that some sort of direct control of them might be looked at more closely by the Board of Trade than has been done up to now.
I shall speak briefly and refer to only one part of this very interesting Report. I refer to paragraphs 103 to 106, which deal with the British Consultants' Bureau, and the references in the evidence relating to those paragraphs. The job of this bureau, which was set up by both industry and Government acting together, is to promote overseas work among British consultants. The members of the

bureau—there are about 180 firms—include consulting engineers, architects, consultants in economics and management planning and surveying. They do what they can to extend the amount of consulting work which we do in expanding overseas markets.
It is interesting to see from the Report that part of the philosophy and method of the bureau when faced with a contract, or a potential contract, is to find the most suitable firm for that contract and, in the words of the Report,
to eliminate wasteful competition between British firms.
That seems to be an extremely sound, sensible and thoroughly Socialist attitude for this non-party organisation to take. I am extremely pleased that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is an ornament of that bureau and lends his efforts towards that very laudable aim. Overseas development particularly in the building world is very big business.
British consultants have overseas work in hand with a capital value of over £1,600 million. That is an enormous sum and it contributes to this country about £20 million in consultants' fees each year. That is perhaps a small contribution to the £1,000 million invisible exports mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), but it is not a negligible one. It is earned by a very small body of men many of whom work not half a mile from this House. They are exporting something which the British can export par excellence—expertise, knowledge, know-how, ability and brains. This is a kind of invisible export which is all gain in the sense that none of it is a re-export. We invent the whole thing and it is a thoroughly admirable thing which we should blow our trumpets about it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Scotsmen.

Mr. Howie: There are Englishmen and possibly Welsh, but I agree that many of them are Scots. This is a big business and a substantial contributor to our invisible earnings. The work of these consultants brings to our manufacturers a substantial body of orders for direct visible exports in machinery and plant.
There are two impediments to the work which these consultants try to do in


expanding our share in those markets against some extremely sophisticated Continental engineering firms. The first impediment is selective employment tax. I wish to refer to this with a certain amount of care, because I have noted, from earlier speeches and from one or two interjections by hon Members opposite, that they do not altogether like this tax. Indeed, I suspect that they dislike it entirely, but I do not.
As I have said to them before, it is an excellent tax. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is not now present but I hope he will hear that I support the tax, as I have said on a number of occasions. What I like about it is that it is selective. This is why I am a little surprised that hon. Members opposite are opposed to it. They are always complaining that the Government have a too blanket approach to assistance to industry. They are always telling us to go for growth points and to be more selective. Here is a circumstance when, instead of giving to industry, we are taking from it and we are selective, but hon. Members opposite do not seem to like this, either. My only complaint is that we are not quite selective enough in this tax and that its incidence is a burden to consulting firms in the fields which I have mentioned.
The first point which is unreasonable about this tax in this context is that, while it is quite rightly levied on service industries, quite wrongly the work of the consultant—and in this connection I am talking more of the consulting engineer and the architect rather than some of the others who are members of the bureau—is regarded as a service. I do not believe that this is correct.
The consultant or technologist working at his drawing board becomes part of the whole chain of manufacture, beginning in a man's head and ending in a product which is placed in the field as a tangible item. He should be so regarded as part of that chain. The further anomaly which arises from this is that a man who is doing technological engineering for a manufacturing firm is relieved of the tax. Where the same man is doing similar work in a consulting firm separate from a manufacturing organisation, he will be taxed. That anomaly cannot be sustained.
I was bold enough to raise this question in the debate on the Finance Bill

recently and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary told me that I was wrong. If he tells me that I am wrong in financial matters, I usually take his word for it, because he knows more about financial subjects than I do. For the moment, therefore, I was put off. Since then, however, I have thought a little more about it, and I would like to illustrate the anomaly by giving two examples.
If a draughtsman is employed by a manufacturer of prefabricated housing units who designs units for manufacture and sale to a client abroad, he is exempt from tax. That is admirable and has my full support. If, however, a similar draughtsman is employed by a consulting engineer to do the same job of designing units which eventually are to be put out to tender rather than made by his own firm, he is taxed. The work is precisely the same and I see no reason why this anomaly should be sustained. I believe that the tax should be refunded for that part of the work of the consulting engineer's staff which is devoted to exports.
I remind my right hon. Friend that the cost of this would be trivial. It would amount, I think, to no more than about £640,000 a year.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Remembering the hon. Member's speech on Amendments from this side on the Finance Bill on this important matter, in fairness to him might I ask him to explain what consistency he showed in his vote on the Amendments which would have achieved the objective which he is now praising?

Mr. Howie: I am flattered that the hon. Member remembers my speeches. I shall try hard in future to remember his should any of them come my way.
On the Finance Bill, I voted against the Amendments on this subject, which were wrong. My own Amendment happened not to be selected for a Division, so that the question of my voting for it did not arise. The hon. Member will, perhaps, have to wait until the Finance Bill next year before he trips me up in that way. The cost to the Exchequer of this much-needed reform would be trivial—about £640,000 a year.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools, it was


said that we spend about £3½ million a year on exhibitions. I am not sure whether that includes trade fairs and the like. In terms of cost effectiveness, I wonder whether that £3½ million would bring greater benefit to our exports than the £640,000 of which I am speaking. I do not decry the advantage of trade fairs, exhibitions and the like. I would go many miles to hear the bagpipes in Brussels. I have no doubt that such a sound encourages the Belgians to rush out and buy British goods.
The point which I am trying to make is that the £3½ million spent in one way produces certain advantages. I suggest to the Board of Trade that it should look at my suggestion closely and come to a conclusion whether the £640,000 forgone in this other way might not bring comparable or even greater advantages.
The other problem to which I wish briefly to refer, which these consultants face and which arises in the Report, is the question of feasibility studies and the means whereby consultants might be compensated for producing feasibility studies at a loss.
This is a direction in which consultants, by the exercise of imagination, ingenuity and thrust—as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said—can generate new business and increase our exports. This, however, is a fairly risky business. In raising feasibility studies, consultants sometimes find themselves up against the kind of unorthodox financial practices which my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools mentioned.
I remember about a year ago sitting in an hotel in a hot foreign place with the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) while a British manufacturer told us stories of how his competitors from foreign countries behaved. They were all entirely new to me, but the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West appeared to be familiar with them. They showed that our manufacturers and exporters sometimes found themselves up against financial practices which were, shall we say, less than normal in our polite society.
Since this kind of problem can be a risky business, a fund has been set up by the Government to assist consultants

partially to carry the cost of such studies. It was thought that the loss might be split fifty-fifty, the consultants sustaining 50 per cent. of the loss and the Government reimbursing the remainder. In cases of this sort, however, the loss might be substantial, amounting to several thousand £s, which would not easily be carried by a partnership, which is the form of organisation in which many consultants operate.
The feasibility fund does not appear to be working because consultants were very unwilling to carry their 50 per cent. of the cost, not because they did not like the idea, but because they could not afford to carry that amount of the burden. Alternatives have been proposed, but I think I am right in saying that no agreement has yet been reached on this matter. The Board of Trade and the consultants have been unable as yet, I think, to devise a system by which proper encouragement and protection could be given to these people.
I urge the Government to be as generous as possible in financing the feasibility studies, because the gain from them will be incalculable compared with the cost. I have put two proposals to the Government, each of which is relatively cheap for them to finance and would produce the promotion of exports and a substantial gain to the invisible part of our balance of payments, which would be of great value to our economy.

6.0 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I have not heard the bagpipes played in Brussels, but I have heard them played in both parts of Pakistan, even up the Kyber Pass, though this did not have anything to do with trade but with the Army.
I am not a member of the Estimates Committee, or the Sub-Committee which produced this excellent Report, but I am delighted to take part in the debate. I am sorry that there is so little mention in this comprehensive Report about exports to the Commonwealth. I know that the "Commonwealth" is a word that one sometimes almost has to apologise for nowadays, but the Commonwealth plus South Africa and the Irish Republic as a unit forming the Commonwealth preference area, still takes nearly 30 per cent. of our exports.
As a body it is the largest single recipient of our exports, yet the Report contains a mention only in Annexe VIII, on page 24, in a Board of Trade memorandum and, again, at the top of page 25, where there is a reference to the Commonwealth preference area and system. I am surprised to find that there is no reference to it in a subsequent Board of Trade memorandum in Appendix 12, beginning on page 342, which deals with international trading rules.
The Report goes in detail into the G.A.T.T. and has a paragraph on E.F.T.A., but there is no mention of the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth preference area. Yet four years ago the Board of Trade published in the Board of Trade Journal two comprehensive articles on Commonwealth preference by Mr. R. W. Green, of the Statistical Department. The first appeared in the issue of 11th June, 1965, and dealt with Commonwealth preference on United Kingdom exports given by 24 Commonwealth countries, including the largest ones. The second, six months' later, dealt with the preferences given by the United Kingdom on imports from the Commonwealth, with which we are not concerned today.
Mr. Green pointed out in his first article that more than half the total imports into the Commonwealth preference area from this country enjoyed some measure of tariff preference over imports from most-favoured-nation countries, and half the countries in the area grant such treatment to 80 per cent. or more of their imports from the United Kingdom. That is a built-in incentive to exporters to export to those countries.
There is also a table in the article showing the average margin of preference on imports that enjoy preference in certain Commonwealth countries was as follows exclusive of the duty:—Canada 13 per cent.; Australia 12 per cent.; New Zealand 20–21 per cent.; India 7–8 per cent.; Pakistan 8 per cent; South Africa 4–5 per cent.; Irish Republic 7 per cent.; Jamaica 12 per cent.; Trinidad and Tobago 10 per cent. I could go on, but I will not weary the House with these figures, which are examples of the advantage our exports have in those Commonwealth countries.
It is a pity that more consideration has not been given to the advantages of

this system, which dates back to the beginning of this century in respect of United Kingdom exports to the four older Commonwealth countries. I know that the present Ottawa system was introduced only in 1932, but before that, after the free trade era of the last century, it was the four Dominions, as they were then called, which led the way to Commonwealth preference and prepared the way for the system which still exists today, despite the long efforts of the Americans to abolish it and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which imposed a ban on any expansion or the introduction of any new preferences.
No Commonwealth country wants to abolish the system. At least, I have never seen a statement by any representative of a Commonwealth country saying that it wants to abolish it. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference of last January reaffirmed its value, even if it did not use the words "Commonwealth preference". Paragraph 51 of the communique stated:
While it was recognised that Commonwealth trade must be seen in the larger context of global trade of which it was a vital part, they"—
the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—
agreed there was continuing scope for the expansion of Commonwealth trade and for this purpose there was need to strengthen the well-established links amongst Commonwealth members.
I take it that that refers at least in part to the Commonwealth preference system.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Did Mr. Green refer in his article to Commonwealth import restrictions? My hon. Friend will find on page 166 of our Report a reference against restrictions on imports to New Zealand.

Sir R. Russell: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that Mr. Green referred to them in that article. I have not had time to check that point.
I know that there are restrictions in Commonwealth countries, but our exports even to New Zealand enjoy a preference over those from all countries other than Commonwealth countries. They have that advantage over Western Europe and E.F.T.A., for example, and Japan and the United States. My point is that those advantages are valuable.
If as much energy and effort had been put into pushing exports to the Commonwealth as has been expended in increasing them to Europe in recent years, our trade with the Commonwealth would be at a higher level than it is now. I hope that the Government will direct more effort to expanding trade in that direction from now on. Canada, Australia, South Africa and, to a certain extent, New Zealand are fast-growing countries. I am not neglecting the smaller Commonwealth countries as well. Their potential is enormous, and we still have the advantages in those markets that I have described. Let us make more use of them than we have. Let us make full use of them in the future.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) is right to emphasis the great importance of developing Commonwealth trade to a much greater extent than we have over the past 20 years. When one visits a country like Canada one sees the enormous potential for exports and the great desire of the Canadians to import from Britain. But it is fair to point out that the Estimates Committee Sub-Committee was not so much concerned with pin-pointing particular areas to which we could export as with the machinery of export promotion. From that point of view, the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was slightly less fair than it might have been.
The right hon. Gentleman made some criticisms of the Report. It is relatively easy to pinpoint its omissions, but considering that the Estimates Committee and its Sub-Committees consist of ordinary back benchers who have little expertise to help them it is surprising that such valuable reports are produced. It is a great tribute to the staff, who are extremely able and conscientious people, acting as administrative assistants rather than as experts. It is well to remember the sterling and conscientious work that is consistently done by Sub-Committees.
It is at least 12 months since the Parliamentary Labour Party's Group on Parliamentary Reform suggested a Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The original idea behind Select Specialist Committees was to build up a body of

expertise. In the Estimates Committee, with constantly changing personnel from Session to Session, it is difficult to build up the expertise necessary to produce a report on this subject, where expert outside assessment of what is happening within a Government Department is needed.
It is perhaps fortuitous that this debate is taking place on the day when the monthly trade figures have been announced; this is a monthly exercise on which our national neurosis feeds. It is trite almost to the point of boredom to say that we live in a Welfare State and that our standard of living depends upon vigorous export growth. It is a pity that attendance in the House is so thin for such a fundamental debate.
The figures produced are good, bearing in mind the usual proviso that one must not judge on a monthly basis. They are not as good as one would hope for, although the trend is upwards, the greatest failure is the apparent incapacity of the Government to control the import flow. That is outside the scope of this debate, but perhaps next Session, there might be appointed a Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee to consider that aspect of our trade position and to deal with import saving and control. It might produce an extremely valuable report which could be set beside the one we are now considering.
The Sub-Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) was Chairman concentrated on the machinery of export promotion and made 19 recommendations on how that machinery could be improved. Its first recommendation was that the several divisions in the Board of Trade chiefly concerned with export promotion should be amalgamated, so that firms would be in no doubt where to direct their inquiries. In reply to that recommendation, the Board of Trade said that some thinking was going on about organisational changes, but that many more bodies were involved in export promotion than were enumerated in the recommendation and it would be extremely difficult to amalgamate all these bodies into one. Will my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made in these organisational changes?
Recommendation 4 was that the Board of Trade should provide an alternative to


the computerised service which is to replace the Export Service Bulletin. The computerised service is designed to ensure that all firms interested in exports will be able to get the information they require at a price which they can afford to pay and without spending too much time searching through the Export Service Bulletin.
It is true that most of our exports are by a relatively small number of large firms. Nevertheless, small and medium-sized firms are important, and information should be readily available to them at a price they can afford to pay. In reply, the Board of Trade pointed out that much of the preliminary work had been and was being done to substitute a computerised service for the Export Service Bulletin. It was anticipated that the computerised service would be operative by the end of 1968.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the service is now in operation and, if it is, will he say what charges are made to the users, how it is operated and whether the Board of Trade expects to obtain a larger number of subscribers than the 4,000 mentioned as using the Export Service Bulletin? Will he also say what is being done to help the smaller and medium-sized firms, and if there is flexibility in charges so as to attract more users? What steps is the Board of Trade taking to ensure that firms which cannot use the computerised service will be able to get the information which they require? What steps are being taken to ensure that information about export opportunities is coming in as quickly as it is being put out by the computerised service?
Recommendations 6 and 7 deal with advertisement campaigns for the promotion of exports. The Committee recommended that advertising of exports should be on a regional rather than national basis. That was based on the evidence given by Sir Derek Pritchard, Chairman of the British National Export Council, who said, at Question 189, that in his experience and that of the council, many firms in provincial towns and cities were not aware of the services offered by the Board of Trade. That seemed to show that there was a lack of advertising information available or else that it was not used.
The Board of Trade said that a full analysis was being undertaken of the scope and methods of advertising. There had been fairly poor results from regional advertising hitherto, but it did not say why. It said that it was examining the matter again. What progress has been made? What is the new form of national advertising, and what is it costing?
In Recommendation 9 the Committee emphasises the importance of recruiting local commercial officers, who could ensure an element of continuity of service which is inevitably lacking in the diplomatic service. The diplomatic service had not noticed any marked improvement in the status of the locally recruited commercial officers consequent on the recommendation of the Plowden Report, but it was the unanimous view of the C.B.I. and the chambers of commerce that such locally recruited personnel would be invaluable and that the inducements offered to such men by way of salary and career prospects should be sufficient to attract and retain men of the very highest calibre.
Some evidence was given about the promotion prospects. The Ministerial reply to the recommendation showed that improvements in the conditions of service of these people would be extended when possible. Can my right hon. Friend say a few words about the enlarging of career prospects, introduction of local pension schemes, and so on?
One other point which has been a common factor in most speeches deals with Recommendation 15, the new national exhibition centre near Northolt Airport. The Board of Trade recognises the need for such a scheme and said that discussions are going on with industry. This has been in the air for a long time. I live not far from the Crystal Palace site, and there is an important site just waiting for development there. Apparently that site has been abandoned, but I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to announce very quickly that agreement has been reached with industry as to the capital financing of the site. Is it still a fact that industry is prepared to pay rent for exhibition space, but not prepared to help in the capital cost of the site?
Is it still a fact that the Government are completely unwilling to shoulder the whole burden of the capital cost? There


must be some area of agreement and compromise. If it is in the national interest that there should be such an exhibition centre, it should not be beyond the wit of Government, industry, or both, to reach a satisfactory solution. There must be alternative methods of financing the scheme. The Committee, particularly the chairman, are to be complimented on producing such a Report and for giving us this opportunity to debate one of the most important problems this country is facing.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), particularly since, in his capacity as Chairman of the Estimates Committee, he has ipso facto the right to attend our Sub-Committee meetings. I join with the Chairman of the Sub-Committee in congratulating the staff who helped us so much. I should like to associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes which have been paid to one who has departed from the Committee. It was interesting to see how many questions which he asked in a penetrating fashion have been pointers for today's debate. We shall miss him very much.
It was also interesting to hear the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) make the same points on S.E.T. as he made on the Finance Bill. I was amazed that his memory should be so good about one thing and yet so hazy as to how he voted. We both spoke with the same voice, but we walked with different feet. I support him in his appeal to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Howie: Shall we call that a one-all draw?

Mr. Costain: On the day after an important cup final, we had better keep to the business. It was obvious during that debate that there was a powerful case. The President of the Board of Trade should bring to the attention of the Chancellor once again these important points. It is ridiculous that people making a model for export are not subject to S.E.T., yet someone drawing up a plan is. It is putting an unnecessary burden upon professional people. The hon. Member for Luton would not admit that the man who drives the lorry to

deliver the goods to the docks is still subject to S.E.T., because he is part of a team. However, this is not a debate on S.E.T. but on exports.
I want to thank the Chairman for the very tolerant way in which he gave other members of the Committee the opportunity to ask questions. Having heard him today for an hour and ten minutes, the House will realise that he is not a man easily suppressed. It was fascinating to hear him making a speech of such a non-controversial nature. It is so unusual for him. I was surprised that at one moment he slipped from grace.
The Chairman of the Estimates Committee made a special point about the terms of reference. Debates on the Committee's Reports present an opportunity for marking the examination papers done by other hon. Members. I very much welcome criticism because, as the hon. Member for Fife, West said, we are not infallible and we are not all experts. One great advantage of the House of Commons is that, by sheer fluke, there always seems to be a Member with specialised knowledge of whatever subject is under consideration.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) wondered why the Committee did not probe more deeply into the opportunities for exports. I am sure that members of the Committee would have been delighted, even during the recess, to visit Japan to study the position there. It is well known, however, that there are not funds available to go wherever we like. We should have to get special permission even to go to Belgium.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East is most studious and conscientious in his work, but I wonder whether he read the evidence which we heard rather than the memoranda, in which there was a lot of reference to this matter. An article in the Financial Times of 21st January expressed disappointment with the results of the Committee. The headline was:
Overhauling, not tinkering, needed for the export machine".
It was critical that the Committee was not capable of producing a miracle, Only one Member of the House thinks that he is capable of doing that, and he is not here at the moment.
It is right that I should declare an interest. The hon. Member for Luton hinted that I was on the Export Group of Construction Industries. I have been a member of that body for a number of years. My first export contribution was made as far back as 1935, when my group was building a railway then known as the Trans-Persian railway, now known as the Trans-Iranian Railway, except by the B.B.C., which always refers to Iran as Persia, and I never know why. In the years before I became a Member I was responsible for the majority of the exports of my group. It gave me the opportunity to visit many parts of the world and to meet the members of the staffs of embassies. The change in attitude which has taken place in embassies during the last 35 years is fascinating.
I well recall—I have mentioned this in the House before—that in 1934 the British ambassador in Persia did not get the enthusiastic welcome which is given today. He thought that any British firm going out to work in such a country would probably add to his diplomatic difficulties. He did not say that we were a nuisance, but he gave every indication that he was not sure that we should be there. Today, from the ambassador downwards, it is appreciated that the development of trade is one of the important features of the job. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce made particular reference to this on page 83 of its memorandum. It says that there are different standards in different British embassies. My experience is that our embassies vary, but that the best are some of the best in the world and that the worst are not as bad as some visiting business men think.
Reference has been made to the importance of recruiting staff locally. Locally recruited staff are an important element in the embassy. Recommendation No. 9 in the Report was referred to by the hon. Member for Fife, West. I was fascinated by the Board of Trade's reply to it:
The Diplomatic Service should consider what further improvements can be made in the conditions of service and status of locally-recruited commercial officers".
In the evidence given to the Committee, the question arose whether these people were accepted in the social life. In my experience, particularly in the East, the effectiveness of a man in his job depends very much on the face that he is able to

present and the importance which he has in his own organisation. We made recommendations and, in the main, they have been accepted. But I was surprised that the hon. Member for Fife, West missed this point.
The Board of Trade, in its reply, said:
The Diplomatic Service is conscious of the need to improve the status of locally-engaged officers where practicable. Within the post there is of course no intrinsic reason why local commercial officers should not be brought into its social life. This is not so much a matter of status as of the individual himself".
This seems to be a case of inverted snobbery. But is it not obligatory on embassies to realise that they should recruit the type of person who is accepted in the social life.
My experience orginally was confined more or less to selling capital goods—railways, docks, harbours, and factories. This involves a different type of selling from the normal run of exports. It is a matter of regret to my industry that the Prime Minister will not even make us eligible for the Queen's Award, because we think that our contribution to exports is very great.
Another factor referred to in the Report is the work done by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. When it started it did not have much success, but over the years it has made an enormous contribution. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce made some criticism of the E.C.G.D. We have found it to be very good. However, when an exporter goes overseas to sell a product, the more he knows about the product and the credit terms he can offer, the better are his chances and ability to sell. One of the grouses made against the E.C.G.D. is that it will not give exporters a blank cheque. I see its difficulties, and the President of the Board of Trade sees its difficulties. But there is room for a certain amount of latitude to be given, just as a bank manager will give a customer a certain amount of latitude over a short time.
What worries me—and this point emerges again in evidence on page 317—is that the staff of the E.C.G.D. is very specialised. We are most fortunate in the senior officials there. They have learnt the hard way. They have the ability to know what risks can be taken. Indeed,


their job depends on that just as the bank manager's does. But the Report says:
The main problem foreseen in meeting the extra demands is in producing the staff required, especially managerial and trained staff. The numbers involved are not large but much of the work is highly specialised and skilled technicians take time to produce. At senior levels they can be appointed only after considerable practical experience.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this vital point special attention and consider whether there cannot be greater efforts to train up staff, because those in charge now are not long off retirement and it is essential that their good work should be continued. Just as the House is entitled to acknowledge the hard work of the Committee, it is entitled to know what the Government are doing to meet these requirements.
The other main object of the debate is to highlight the problems of British industries wishing to export, to give some greater publicity to the facilities available and to point out where we are lagging behind other nations. From my own experience, I should like to offer some ideas on what is necessary to hit the jackpot in exports. There are five "rights" involved.
One has to have the right material of the right quality in the right place at the right time with the right service. This is not a jackpot one gets by pulling a handle and hoping that all the numbers will come into line. It is much more akin to those puzzles which we sometimes do at Christmas where one has to get six balls into six little holes. A child of four can get one ball in a hole; a child of eight can get two in, and a child of 10 can probably get three in. But if one tries to get all six in, then skill really becomes necessary, and determination as well.
What the exporters do not want or should not want is direct Government assistance in how to solve their own problems. What they want and have a right to expect is for the Government to explain the rules and tell them how other people have solved these problems. If we get that point right, it is much easier to see what is expected. Three hon. Members in the debate have made references to the suggestion for changing the name and concentrating the export organisations. I have a special point on this,

because it comes out clearly. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take this as criticism of this Department because I want him in a good mood when he replies.
Industry gets so many forms from the Board of Trade, so many inquisitions, that it is becoming a little suspicious and is wondering whether, if it fills in any other forms, the Board of Trade is going to do something to help or whether it is another police effort. There is a wonderful document about exporting which all of us need to know but I feel—and this emerges in quite a lot of the evidence—that it might be done under another name, such as "Great Britain Exports Ltd." or something like that, and that at the same time the structure of the E.C.G.D. should be amended so that commercial officers could make a career in our embassies.
Under the present structure, the period of time served by a commercial officer in that job at the Foreign Office is just a step in the career of a budding ambassador. It is done on the way up the ladder. The time has come when this job should be a career in itself, because the fair criticism has been made that a commercial officer never stays in his post long enough. I spent seven years in Persia and from that experience I believe that it is only after such a period that one really gets to know a place, meet people and gain respect. But by the end of such a period, a hard-working, ambitious and efficient commercial officer—and if he is not all three we do not want him—is ready for promotion and, of course, it would be wrong to keep him in post if he is worthy of promotion.
The Government should consider making a special department for exports with the highest posts available to commercial officers and so create a proper career structure for men able and willing to stay in post for some time. In my own firm's experience, if we want men to stay in the not too pleasant parts of the world for some period, we either have to arrange a generous system of early retirement or indicate to them that the highest posts at home are open to them and that they are doing right for their careers in staying overseas. If the President of the Board of Trade looks into that aspect, he will do much to help exports.
The right material of the right quality is very important. That immediately


brings to mind market research. I cannot deny that the best market research is for an industrialist to send out his exports to an area to make a proper survey. There is little difficulty in that for the larger firms like I.C.I. and Hoover. The evidence given to the Sub-Committee by Hoover, an international firm with branches all over the world, was fascinating and it appears on page 219 onwards. It explains the approach which other nations make to their factories. It refers to the survey made by the Australian Government when Hoover (Australia) Ltd. wanted to develop in the Singapore area. In 1965 they were critical of the then staff of the British office in Singapore. I know from my own experience that that is not a valid criticism today. Evidence was given to the Committee of a confidential nature and I am sure that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools will confirm that it was fascinating to hear about the amount of data which had gone out from the Australian Government to help exports.
Market research, as I have said, is a two-way trade. The commercial officers, as the senior staff responsible in the embassies, should be given opportunities to come back more often to the United Kingdom. I think of my old Sunday School days when the missionaries used to come back from overseas and tell of the thrills and excitements of their missions. If the commercial officers were invited back more often to this country, they could be given opportunities to speak at chamber of trade lunches, rotary clubs and at other industrialists functions. That more than any advertisement would stimulate local industrialists to take more interest in exports. I do not believe that many industrialists read advertisements, and criticism on this score is made in the Report.
Most industrialists are always fascinated to read about the successes of their competitors. I know the excitement in my own group when one of our competitors lands a contract that we had never even heard of. The office buzzes with the news. I suggest that through the embassies much more publicity could be sent back about successes, not only by British firms, but by other nations. I am sure that this would stimulate a competitive spirit among British industrialists.

Mr. Dalyell: In support of the hon. Member's argument, may I ask whether he is aware that every fortnight a plane is run by the Ministry of Technology from Britain to Adelaide and Woomera in Australia. There are usually empty seats on the plane which could easily be occupied by some of our valuable commercial staff in Australia. Such a proposition could equally apply to the Far East, where Forces' planes go to and fro.

Mr. Costain: That is a most helpful intervention. I was not aware of that fact. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade is aware of it and that he will take the opportunity to find out whether the plane could be diverted en route.
A great deal of time and energy is devoted by British industrialists to the work of British National Exports Council. The House should pay tribute to those industrialists who carry out this work quite free. In some instances they are helping their own competitors, but they are undertaking a most valuable job.
My third point relates to the time scale in relation to trade, which is a most important consideration. More trade is lost because goods fail to be delivered on time, or because goods are not available for a number of months, than any statistics could ever show. I shall not develop the arguments about all the problems caused by strikes which directly affect exports, or the argument that those who feel it their duty not to become blacklegs may, in their innocence, become export saboteurs since their failure to deliver a product amounts to export sabotage. I suggest that when these commercial officers come back to this country, they should take the opportunity to visit firms, as was done during the war, so that they could talk to individual workers and to stress how their efforts can help our exports.
The House will know of the severe restrictions of G.A.T.T. The Sub-Committee took evidence from the Birmingham Chamber of Trade, and I asked one witness how the Agreement was being operated. I suggested that we were operating the Agreement as if we were playing a cricket match, but that the other nations were playing the Cup Final. The witness said that it was even worse than that.
I have been talking with experts about ways of getting round G.A.T.T. in order to help our exports. I suggest that in areas where there are no British agents, or indeed any agency in existence, we should build advance factory warehouses on the sort of basis that we build advance factories in development areas. In this way we should not contravene G.A.T.T.
I suggest that British manufacturers should put a small stock of their goods in these warehouses so that those goods would be immediately available. It would be possible in the distribution of machinery to use the ordinary agencies, but we have now got the O.M.C. which possibly could be developed. Would the President of the Board of Trade give the matter special thought, and could he say whether this suggestion has possibilities and whether it would comply with G.A.T.T.?
I now come to my fourth point: what is the right price? How is it established? Is it a market price, is it a profitable price, or is it a price calculated because the quality is above the market quality? It is only by visiting and sampling that this aspect can properly be appreciated.
It is important that the Government should not take measures which make the British price of goods for export noncompetitive. The hon. Member for Luton has referred to the selective employment tax. Certainly the Budget increases will add directly to the price of goods. The transport and shipping of goods are just as much elements in cost as is manufacture.
Could there not be some form of rebate? The hon. Member for Luton said that consulting engineers should be allowed to be free of S.E.T. in the export of plans. He has obviously forgotten the argument, which no doubt the President of the Board of Trade will later deploy, that under G.A.T.T. one cannot exempt a particular function of an organisation because it is doing export work. That is rule number one of G.A.T.T. There is of course the argument that S.E.T. should be abolished altogether. But if that cannot be done and the President of the Board of Trade would consider freeing from S.E.T. all consultants and architects, I am sure that that would not be a contravention of G.A.T.T. We

should then leave the industry to get on with the job.
To come to my fifth point. The place where the goods are needed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he has been speaking for 30 minutes and that there are a number of other hon. Members who are still waiting to speak.

Mr. Costain: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wondered whether you were getting restless. I apologise, but I do not often make 30-minute speeches. Of course, I will take the hint.
In conclusion, perhaps I might echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said. If the Government will let industry get on with the job, arrange taxation to encourage efficiency and make available in our embassies overseas the necessary specialised services, even today's encouraging export figures will grow better.

7.0 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I am sure that I speak for most hon. Members when I say that I was not getting restless with the speech of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I was greatly enjoying it, and I rise now obviously with no desire that the debate should come to an end, but simply because a number of hon. Members have raised the same questions, and it would save time to answer some of their specific points at this stage.
To begin with, like other hon. Members who did not serve on the Sub-Committee, I want to record my warm appreciation of the work put in by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) and the members of his Sub-Committee. Their Report has been of great value to us in the Government and has also stimulated a constructive public debate about our export services. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts.
In a Report of this kind, we are not necessarily looking for expert professional advice, because probably that can be obtained from other sources, but for an outside look at an aspect of Government service which is made by experienced people of good judgment. From


that point of view, the Report has been extremely useful.
Before coming to the Report, I must say one word about today's trade figures and the way that exports are going generally. They are the background to all the work of export promotion. The House will know by now that in May exports reached the record level of £567 million, seasonally adjusted. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) congratulated me on the good fortune that this debate coincided with a good run of export figures, and I am very conscious of that.
However, as I do not like to push my luck too far, I reiterate what I have said many times before, that we must not read too much into a single month's figures, and, certainly, we do not want to encourage further what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) called the national neurosis of paying far too much attention to one month's figures, whether they are good or bad. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see our exports to North America regaining, and, indeed, surpassing, the high rate that they had achieved before the American dock strikes.
Looking back at the record for 1969 so far, exports have averaged £547 million a month compared with £536 million in the second half of last year. Perhaps this is not an enormous increase, but it has been achieved despite the effects of the United States dock strikes, our own strikes in the motor industry and the marked lull in deliveries for export of ships and aircraft. The May figures show an improvement in respect of each of those three factors. The recent monthly figures also give reassuring indications about our main markets, with strong recovery to the United States, resumed growth to Western Europe, and a continued increase in shipments to the sterling area.
For the rest of this year and into 1970 our exports will be influenced strongly by the development of world trade. Clearly, we cannot expect a repetition of last year's sensational increase in world trade. Nevertheless, the flattening out in the growth of world trade which has been much heralded and so long prophesied has yet to appear, and present indications are that we shall see a good growth, although rather slower than last

year. Within that growth, there should be ample opportunities for a substantial rise in British exports.
I say that for two reasons. The first is that our export performance has improved since devaluation. The second is the benefit still to come of the very substantial increase in engineering export orders achieved in recent months.
On the first point, since the beginning of last year we have come very close to maintaining our share of world trade, which is something that we had very seldom achieved in the years before devaluation. Moreover, we did it in a year of very fast growth in world trade, whereas in similar periods in the past we tended to lose our share rapidly. Over the period since devaluation, our exports have grown in volume by 17 per cent., equivalent to an annual rate of 9 per cent. or nearly three times the average rate over the previous decade.
A substantial part of the cost advantage from devaluation remains and should bring us further benefit this year. I have said on many occasions that the full benefits of devaluation will take time to develop. It often takes more than a few months for a firm to redirect its marketing efforts towards a higher level of export sales, to expand its sales networks, to develop goods designed specially for world markets and in the case of capital goods, to negotiate and fulfil orders.
Exports of machinery, which account for over a quarter of our total exports, have increased since devalution by only about 25 per cent. in value, compared with 30 per cent. for all exports, 43 per cent. for motor vehicles and 50 per cent. for clothing and footwear. But, with engineering orders up in volume by 20 per cent. in the second half of last year and by nearly 50 per cent. in the first quarter of this year, compared with the second half of 1967, I think that we shall see a substantial rise in machinery shipments later this year and next.
In this analysis, I have not taken into account the extent to which published export figures may underestimate the full measure of our exports. This matter was referred to in the Press notice about the May trade figures which was published this morning.
Considerable reference has been made to "invisibles" by a number of hon.


Members, especially by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. They all spoke of the continued contribution made by invisibles to our balance of payments and, in particular, of the remarkable figure of £47 million for the net invisible balance which has been the monthy average in the first quarter of this year. I gladly join in all the glowing comments about the performance of the invisible balance, from whatever part of the House they came. I say that because, for some reason, those tributes came most conspicuously from the Opposition benches, as though hon. Gentlemen opposite had some proprietary interest in invisibles and invisibles were idealogically their property. I fail to see why that should be so. I do not see why the Conservative Party should be in a position to claim credit, whether practical or ideological, for the excellent behaviour of tourism, shipping, aviation and other aspects of the invisible account.
We have to bear in mind that by far the largest reason why invisibles are doing so well at the moment has been devaluation, which has had a very marked effect on tourism, on the travel section of invisibles, and most conspicuously on the figure for profits and dividends.

Mr. David Howell: Arising from that, is not the reason for the praise appearing to come mostly from this side of the House a negative one in the sense that there appears to have been so little praise in the speeches of Ministers? If the President of the Board of Trade looks at "The Task Ahead", which is meant to be a projection of the Government's economic policy, he will find scarcely any positive proposals concerning the development of invisibles.

Mr. Crosland: No doubt I shall have to refresh my memory about the details of "The Task Ahead". It was a long document. I read it when it was published, but that was some weeks ago. Whatever is said by "The Task Ahead", I would repeat what a crucial part in our total performance is played by the invisible side of the account, and with increasing success, despite S.E.T.
The argument about S.E.T. gets totally out of perspective when we are discussing invisibles. The tax affects only a proportion of those responsible for in-
visible earnings. If we go through the different categories of invisibles, it affects most of those only to a very small extent, quite apart from what was mentioned by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe about the difficulties that we would have with G.A.T.T. if we explicitly differentiated in respect of S.E.T. During the months that we have been arguing about S.E.T. and its disastrous effects on invisibles, the fact is that the invisible surplus has shown a continuing improvement.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: The point we are trying to make is that it is very hard for people to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's encouragement when they are at the same time being clobbered. Surely the effect of the Government's attitude on exporters is significant.

Mr. Crosland: I do not think that anybody in this field can describe himself as being clobbered. I am aware of the attitude and criticisms of the British Export Houses Association and others. Reference has been made to them this afternoon. But if we look at the proportion of their turnover that S.E.T. represents, the word "clobbered" has absolutely no relevance of any kind. In any case, they do not act as though they have been clobbered, because they continue to give us a larger and larger invisible surplus as each quarter goes by. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East mentioned one or two other general points to which, as a matter of courtesy, perhaps I should reply. He asked: what is the state of play on the inquiry into the value-added tax? The state of play is that the N.E.D.C. has been looking at the problems involved. I understand that its report is in an advanced state of preparation, although no date has yet been fixed for publication.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to overseas investment and the restrictions placed upon it. There is a great deal of public misunderstanding about this subject. People talk as though there was a total restriction on overseas investment, but that is not so. There are certainly restrictions, but the volume of overseas investment, partly in consequence of borrowing overseas, is very substantial and is rising.
Perhaps I might briefly give the figures since there is so much misunderstanding.


The net outward investment of United Kingdom resident companies in 1967 was £281 million. In 1968 the figure was £372 million. In the first quarter of 1969 it was £135 million, which is an annual rate of £540 million. So that, despite the restrictions which exist and which I know in certain types of company can be a great irritation—I am very conscious of this—our private overseas investment is running at a very high level historically.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools raised another general point when he said that in general we were gentlemanly in this country and did not break enough G.A.T.T. rules sufficiently often. I accept the suggestion that we are gentlemanly. All I am concerned about is whether we are more gentlemanly than we ought to be or than other countries are. It is worth remembering that, compared with other major trading countries, over the last five years we alone have had a substantial devaluation and we alone have introduced import deposits. So we have taken more direct measures affecting our balance of payments than any other advanced industrial trading country.
Certainly, when I go to E.F.T.A. conferences—which I do twice a year—and argue about smelters or tariffs on frozen fish fillets or other things, about which there has been criticism this afternoon, I do not find that Britain is thought of as a country which alone, in contrast to all other major countries, is accepting all the rules of international behaviour. In this sphere every country that one visits thinks that it is standing in a white sheet and that everybody else is breaking the rules. So when we in this country sometimes say this, it is not substantially different from what is said in many other countries.
I turn rapidly to the Report of the Estimates Committee. My right hon. Friend and I have given our answers to the recommendations in Command No. 3854, so this afternoon I will select only a limited number of the most important points which have been raised.
The first of the recommendations referred to this afternoon was that the various parts of the Board of Trade dealing with exports should be
…formally combined in a Department within the Board and given a distinct name

to indicate to industry and the public the Department's concern with export promotion.
In my response to this recommendation last December, I made it clear that I accepted fully the need to get right the structure of our direct export services and to get these organised along the most efficient lines. I am not yet satisfied that we have fully achieved this. I indicated in the White Paper, which was our answer to the Select Committee, that we had already taken the first steps in this direction.
To be explicit, I said in the White Paper that, as a first step, the Trade Fairs and British Weeks and Store Promotions Branches had been amalgamated and would now be located with the Export Services Branch in a single building in the city. But I have now gone a stage further and amalgamated the former Export Services Branch and the Fairs Branch into a single organisation within the Board of Trade. This new organisation, in conjunction with the export sections of our regional offices, will provide the focal point of contact for British industry and should be a significant step forward.
I have also set in hand, because I am not yet satisfied that we have achieved completely the right organisation, a thorough review of all those parts of the Board of Trade which deal with exports. This review will be conducted by a senior official of the Board who has had recent experience of the work of our commercial posts overseas. I have been fortunate enough to persuade Mr. Hector McNeil, who is known to many in the House as the chairman of one of our largest exporting companies and Chairman of the Export Council for Europe, and Professor Elliott Jaques, of Brunel University, to collaborate in this review and to offer their advice and guidance. In their review they will take fully into account all the points made by the Select Committee in its Report and the evidence which was put to the Select Committee by the C.B.I. and other bodies.

Mr. Anderson: I understand that the survey is only concerned with the internal departments of the Board of Trade. Because of the danger of overlap between official, semi-official and nonofficial bodies, would it not be more


valuable if Mr. Hector McNeil had a much larger remit and was asked to look at the whole sphere of export promotion overseas, official, semi-official and nonofficial?

Mr. Crosland: I was coming to the point about our relations with other bodies. For the moment, I am on the point raised in the Report of the Estimates Committee about the organisation of the services within the Board of Trade. Perhaps I might conclude that point by saying that I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East that the timing of our debate from this point of view is unfortunate in that we shall now have to consider the report of Sir Val Duncan's Committee which will open up a great number of these issues. I wanted the review that we are conducting to have got off the ground and to have started in preparation for anything that the Duncan Committee may also recommend on how our export services generally should be organised within the Board. Sir Val Duncan presented his Report to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on Monday and my right hon. Friend will inform the House as soon as a decision on publication has been taken.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East also mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) just now, the different question of the relationship between the Government's export promotion services and private ones, in particular, to the N.E.D.C. and whether we should seek drastically to reorganise and alter this relationship. I have thought a great deal about this and have come to the conclusion that at this time it would not be right to do so, and the Estimates Committee did not so recommend. On the whole, the preponderant opinion, not only in the Government but within N.E.D.C. and private industry, is that the present set up, though it looks untidy on paper, works well and operates efficiently and there is no sufficient cause for a radical change in the relationship between the Government and the N.E.D.C. Having thought it out, that is the view which I take at the moment and shall stick to.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, I hope, paragraph 9 of the Report, which said that the Committee would not wish to pronounce against such an inquiry at a future date. That was published over a year ago. Has he had that in mind in considering the terms of reference?

Mr. Crosland: I will certainly bear that in mind. I am not against an inquiry at some future date, but, at the moment, when Government services are under such scrutiny, both by this internal review and by the Duncan Committee, we had better leave it for the time being before we set up another inquiry into this much wider issue.
I turn to another step which we are taking, very much in line with another important recommendation of the Sub-Committee. I am glad to inform the House that work on a computerised service of export information for industry, instead of the present Export Service Bulletin, is now well in hand. There are some complicated details relating to the new service still to be worked out, including the very pertinent one of what the British exporter should be expected to pay for the service, but I see no reason why this considerable step forward in rapid and selective dissemination of export information should not come into effect at the beginning of 1970.
The Sub-Committee rightly paid a great deal of attention to our work in promoting British participation in fairs, exhibitions, store promotions and British Weeks. This is a very important and rapidly growing form of assistance. For instance, in 1966, support at Trade Fairs was given to 3,800 firms at 155 events, whereas, by 1968, we were supporting 5,300 firms at 239 events. In money terms, expenditure rose from £1·3 million in 1966 to, I estimate over £4·2 million in the current year.
The question of British Weeks was mentioned in the Report and again tonight. The British Weeks in Tokyo and Vienna later this year will conclude the present series of major British Weeks. I have already, in my response to the Report, indicated how hard it is to evaluate the British Weeks in hard terms, but there is no doubt that they have endeared themselves to some sections of


British industry. There is almost a "Save British Weeks" movement growing up. This may be because there is some misunderstanding in industry about our attitude to such large scale promotions.
I have no wish to lose the best features of the formula which has been developed for these Weeks and I am sure that some of the more successful of those which we have staged over the last few years have enabled British exporters to achieve a permanent penetration into new and valuable markets. But we must obviously tailor our major efforts to meet the specific requirements of particular markets, so that we get value for money in terms of long term growth in our exports. It must be sustained and long term growth, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said.
The British Weeks formula is clearly not suitable to every market in every country. It has evolved a good deal since it was introduced in 1964 in Dusseldorf, but it remains essentially a method of promoting exports of consumer goods. I have definitely not abandoned the concept of making major export efforts on the scale of these Weeks and do not rule out the possibility that further Weeks on the established pattern may be held in markets where they are likely to be particularly successful—but we do not want to go on repeating an existing formula which, although it has succeeded in the past, has been shown by experience to have distinct limitations. We must be prepared to try out new forms of promotion to meet different market situations.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not important not to confine Brtish Weeks to a capital or metropolitan city, but to see that the effort is diversified around the country? For example, too much attention on Tokyo might, in some circumstances, be a loss in relation to the large market in Osaka.

Mr. Crosland: This is something of which we are conscious. After we have held the British Week in the capital, we try to follow up in some other part of the country, just as we are following up the British Week in Stockholm last September with a major effort in Gothenburg.
The Sub-Committee referred to our advertising, and I have said in my reply that we would be changing our approach in our new series. The previous series,

"Call Export Intelligence", which was a good deal criticised, has come to an end, and we are concentrating on advertising specific markets and aiming to draw specific opportunities to the attention of those sections of industry which we believe to be really capable of achieving higher exports. In other words, we are trying—I think that this was in the minds of the members of the Sub-Committee—to introduce a policy of selectivity in our advertising.
But this goes well beyond advertising and will increasingly apply to all our services. Our resources are not unlimited and we must move away, as we have already done to a considerable extent, from the principle of non-discrimination among firms. With limited resources, we cannot pay equal attention to all firms, regardless of their true export potential. We must be selective and give priority to the successful and established exporters, and those most likely to achieve success—again, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East had a graphic phrase which I noted down—"those who are likely to maintain success over time."
The right hon. Gentleman also raised a most interesting question of whether this selectivity should be by size of firm. It is certainly not our experience—I think that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe would agree with me—that the largest firms make little use of our export services—often, rather the reverse. Some of our biggest exporters are amongst the most regular and demanding of our customers.
At the other end of the scale, there are small firms with excellent export records, whom we also support to the utmost. In the past, partly, we hope, as a result of our help, some of these small firms have been so successful in overseas markets that they have become winners of the Queen's Award and, in many cases, household names as brilliant exporters.
Therefore, although we are now adopting a more selective approach, we do not regard size as the essential and meaningful criterion. We would judge that it is the established and successful exporters who will be able to give us the biggest improvement in exports over the next year or two, so we are giving priority to their needs. But that does not mean that we shall judge them by size or neglect


the smaller firms or those which have not yet begun to export on a significant scale. All that we are concerned about is their export potential.
I will not catalogue many more of our services. One which does not get much publicity, but which is important, is the attempt to simplify export documentation. Accurate recording is of crucial importance, as our press statement today emphasises, but anything which we can do towards further simplification and increased use of computers and so on is highly desirable. Here, the Report of the Committee under Lord Thorneycroft, which will go to the Movement of Exports "Little Neddy" at the end of the year, will be of great value.
Of specific Board of Trade initiatives, I do not want to repeat announcements which I have already made to the House, so I will merely refer to the Overseas Projects Group, the export marketing research scheme, and the work of the Group Export Representation Unit. These are now under way and in hand. I also will not take up the point about E.C.G.D., to which I was glad that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe paid a tribute. I take his point that we must watch the future, in view of pending retirements and the like, but this is very much in my mind, as is the question of flexibility.
But it would be generally agreed—I know that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) is in dispute over a particular project at the moment—that, in recent years the Department has tried to find new opportunities, such as buyer credit at the moment, to improve the efficiency of their services.
But I must refer in a little more detail to the National Exhibition Centre. This has been a long-drawn-out, and to me intensely exasperating and frustrating story. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary outlined it to the House in an Adjournment debate last February, and I shall remind the House only of the essential features.
In 1962, industry was prepared to play a positive rôle in financing a National Exhibition Centre at Crystal Palace. But the Confederation of British Industry—the Federation of British Industry as it

was—advised that the terms of the G.L.C. trusteeship of the Crystal Palace site made it impossible for the land to be security for a debenture issue, and it left the finance to others. Despite that, the Government were ready to give serious consideration to financing the Crystal Palace Centre jointly with the G.L.C.
But a combination of rising costs and growing doubts, in industry and in the Government, about the suitability of the Crystal Palace site led eventually to the abandonment of these plans, and a committee was set up under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Brown to find a new site. This committee included representatives of the C.B.I., the British National Export Council, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, as well as the interested Government Departments.
After intensive study the Committee recommended a site near Northolt Airport, and I accepted that site as being the best, but there still remained the problem of finance. Neither the Government, at a time of stringent control over public expenditure, nor industry collectively, were willing to commit themselves definitely to the large sums of money involved. But I have now had certain proposals put to me by a private developer which may enable the scheme to go ahead more economically. I am awaiting detailed information about these proposals, and at this stage, therefore, I cannot tell the House definitely whether the project will go ahead, with or without support from public funds.
I wholly share the general impatience and disappointment that events have not moved faster. Many of us who go abroad see fine exhibition centres on the Continent and elsewhere. These centres typically were created, not by finance from central Governments, but by municipalities and local industry which saw the advantages of a major exhibition centre to the locality as well as to the country. We have not had the benefit of such municipal initiative in our case, and those sectors of industry which have persistently urged the need for a centre have not always shown an equal readiness to back their support with the necessary finance. Given, also, the Government's reluctance to find large sums of money at such a time, the blame for the delay is probably


fairly widely distributed, but for my part I am still determined to see the project become a reality.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of substituting a Government guarantee for use of public money as a possible way of unlocking private resources?

Mr. Crosland: I shall gladly bear that in mind. It is something that we have considered. I do not think that there is any method of Government support or financing at which we have not looked with the most meticulous detail, and, indeed, which has not been looked at by those representative bodies in industry which are as anxious as we are to go ahead.
As a number of hon. Members said, export promotion does not involve simply the Board of Trade. It heavily involves the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, particularly its commercial officers, and I think that the timing of the debate is a little unfortunate, because the Duncan Report will have a great deal to say on that aspect of the matter which is not primarily my responsibility. I should like to say again—as one or two hon. Members have said—that on going round the world—as I do a great deal whenever the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe is not raising awkward matters, such as the Duccio—I have been very impressed with the calibre of the commercial officers and staff in our embassies abroad.
From everything that I hear, it is much higher than it was a few years ago, and what is also striking is that, at any rate outside three or four major countries, it is not merely the commercial staff, but the whole of the embassy from the ambassador downwards who are actting as trade promotion officers. I found the atmosphere in these embassies intensely encouraging and exciting, but I shall not go into more detail simply because of the pending Duncan report.
I conclude by saying that I am determined to make sure that our services will give the proper support to industry's export efforts. I hope that the growing success and growing intensity of our efforts will be apparent from the rising expenditure—up from £1 million in 1965 to an expected £6·5 million this year—

from the large number of new initiatives that we are taking and have been taking, some of which I have mentioned this afternoon, and, above all—because this is what I find most heartening—from the growing reputation—I do not think I am claiming too much—which our services enjoy in industry.
We commissioned some independent market research for our proposed computer service. It showed, incidentally, that over half of our exporters learned of export opportunities from the Government services. It also showed that there was in industry an enormous reservoir of good will towards the Board of Trade in its efforts to assist British exporters. Without being in the slightest degree complacent, I take pleasure in that, but I am certain that we can, and should, be doing even better than we are doing now.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: It is a rare pleasure for me to follow the Minister, and even tempting to take up every point that he made, but I shall not be so tempted because, Mr. Speaker, you have reminded us to be brief.
I think that the Report is a good one. It is good in the sense that it has produced this debate. It is good in the sense that it has produced such good speeches from both sides of the House, and two such constructive speeches from our two Front Benches. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having, as it were, taken this investigation by one of our Select Committees to this stage of some constructive proposals. This is what we have Select Committees for, and I wish I could say that all Departments brought the matters on which Select Committees report to the Floor of the House, even within a year.
I think that I can describe myself as a person who has for many years been an international marketeer. I have practised this business of international marketing in many countries—in the Commonwealth, in Europe, in Russia, in Japan, in the Far East, and in the United States. I am not alone in this House in that sort of experience—my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has been at it for longer—but I have been concerned with the international marketing and promotion of consumer goods, served by a


very large company, rather than capital goods.
I, too, have seen changes in the attitude in our embassies and our ambassadors and their staffs—not only commercial counsellors, but the whole staff—as they have moved from being concerned only with political activities, towards commercial reorientation, and this has undoubtedly been a great service to British industry. I hope that the change will continue to develop and grow.
I was recently in a South American country where I was vividly struck by the commercial orientation of our ambassador himself. When talking to a delegation of politicians on a political visit he was able to paint for us in very clear detail the commercial scene against which we could see the political picture as well. And the same could be said for his supporting staff.
It was very encouraging, particularly because I once had to prepare a survey of South American countries for an organisation in this country which did not know the pattern there. On that occasion I found that I could not get much help from the Board of Trade. This was about five years ago, but I should explain to the right hon. Gentleman that I was looking at the textile industry, in which there was not much interest in the sale of products and machinery to South American countries, and so, unfortunately, the files in the Board of Trade had become rather thin with the years, particularly since the war.
One must seek other sources of information, and there are sources other than those mentioned today. For example, in addition to the United Nations, there are the resources, in the case of South America, of the Bank of London and South America, which has in its files some of the best information available about that area.
This may sound surprising, but I do not believe that exporting is really the natural element for the British. We have for too long been distributors to a tame market. About 15 years ago I went into one of our largest industries—the textile industry of Lancashire—in search of the support of a big British textile manufacturer in an effort to persuade him to consider exporting. He had 500 looms, a fair size of business even for Lanca-
shire, but his answer was, "How do I go about it?"
That was the reaction of the chairman of certainly a medium-sized firm 15 years ago. He did not know how to appoint an agent or about the size and potential of markets, even on his doorstep in Europe. Admittedly perhaps in that industry some of his products found their way abroad as a result of the activities of the Manchester confirming and converting textile houses. He did not know how to go about exporting. I had visited him on behalf of my company which was prepared to pay 90 per cent. of his expenses; we like a token 10 per cent., I told him, when initiating a venture abroad. He was hesitant about agreeing to my proposal and suggested that we had lunch. We got into a fine extravagant motor car and had a fine extravagant lunch.
Just as our ambassadors and staffs in our embassies have changed over the years, so too the leaders of our industry, in both medium and small firms, have changed their views and there is now a greater awareness of the potential and opportunity of export markets. I agree with the attractive phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) when he said that the thrusters were emerging in British industry. We want more encouragement given to the thrusters who are taking control and running British industry.
I wish to take a closer look at the question, "How do I export?" The Select Committee considered the aspects which lay around that question and it has provided us with a valuable Report in which it has sought to recommend the answers to the Government on how that question can best be answered. While Government information, advice and help, in this connection is good, it is good only to a point. It is helpful concerning overseas markets, where Government legislation in those countries requires diplomatic intervention. In countries in South America it can be particularly helpful for currency reasons and difficulties in exchange. In the Far East it can be helpful in understanding the eastern mind.
In this connection, I recall that on my first trip to Sweden the British commercial councillor in Stockholm reminded me


about the Swedes' meticulous care for timing. They are meticulous about keeping appointments and he told me that if one had an appointment to visit a Swede, and particularly somebody at the Swedish Foreign Office, one should be there five minutes early, even if it meant marching up and down the pavement outside to enable one to enter the door at precisely the right moment. This may sound a tall story, but it is true and I speak from experience having visited the country about 50 times. People of other countries like to think that we take note of their ways and customs.
The Board of Trade has been helpful in its publications to British businessmen about countries and markets. Often simple advice about social habits and customs can be of the greatest value. There are, in addition, many other bodies from which one can gather information. Some of them take a more specialised, even a more commercial, approach than the Board of Trade. This is not a bad thing, for varying forms of suppliers of information can only be to the good.
I may differ from some hon. Members in welcoming the fact that the President has not decided to wrap up B.N.E.C. with the Board of Trade, since it is helpful, if the Board of Trade is unable to be of assistance, for one to be able to obtain another angle, perhaps a more commercial approach, from people outside the Civil Service; and in B.N.E.C. one finds people with considerable knowledge of industry and markets working voluntarily.
In considering the question, "How do I go about exporting?" there are seven points which are essential and which I hope the Board of Trade will note. They are particularly essential for the middle and smaller-sized industries in Britain to consider when looking at opportunities of selling more, which really means selling in markets outside this country.
The first requirement—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East referred to market intelligence—is the need to survey markets and, in this connection, the Board of Trade, the Foreign Office and other bodies can help. The British manufacturer can also find help by visiting in this country the embassies of the countries in which he is interested. There are in Britain some embassies and high commissions with

trade departments, and they can be of considerable assistance.
Trade associations can be valuable and some of these could be enjoined to become more internationally market-orientated. Perhaps the Board of Trade could remind some of the less good ones to think in terms of world markets. Besides them, there are the banks and publishers, particularly the publishers of trade journals. I have found from experience that these publishers are often good sources of information about overseas markets.
Secondly, the good survey should reveal the effort required and the scale and method. What is revealed for the manufacturer may be daunting and the size of the problem may seem too difficult. One need only consider the problem of exporting to America to see how daunting a problem it can be. This is a vast continent, some 2,000 miles across, with different climates and ways. The cost of matching the competitive atmosphere of business there frightens most British businessmen. They should be frightened because they can easily burn their fingers trying to get into the American market.
The first survey is the most important. It should reveal not only the size and scale but the method and tactics. One should not necessarily try to sell, say, a consumer product in New York. It may be better to sample it by selling it in Phoenix, Dallas, Minneapolis or even on the other coast where the tempo of business is not as high-pressured as it is in New York. In other words, one should try the market on a scale smaller than New York, and this is what a good survey should reveal. I am not holding this out as an overall general rule, but as an aspect which ought to be thought of.
I have found that when the size of an operation seems too big for the medium or smaller sized industrial organisation here is something on which we can learn about co-operative effort. It is here where initiative by the Board of Trade could bring together manufacturers and merchants through their trade associations, or groups of associations, representing individual preferences but forming a group measuring up to the scale of the operation. I have seen this at work in the way the Japanese tackle selling


in America and Europe. They are operating what actually is a British nineteenth century method by having great wholesale houses which have behind them a consortium of mixed manufacturers of the same kind of product. Through their groups they establish offices and employ staffs of first-class men. They speak, not only English, but probably German and French as well.
That wholesale consortium will also be staffed with technical men to provide technical services, because Japan is 6,500 miles away, yet still they can succeed in the highly competitive atmosphere of Europe and America. We think of their success in selling wool textiles in America with these techniques and money which give them the opportunity in any market to take the cream away from the top of the market even in the United States. Some 25 per cent. or more of the suitings sold in the United States are made by the Japanese. Their suitings are best for the American market because they make them to American tastes and not to Japanese tastes.
Japan is not a big country and it has only 90 million population. They do not model themselves on Americans but on us. We are a small island and we do not attempt to model ourselves on the United States. I do not say that the Japanese are better at exporting than we are, but they have a technique which we developed successfully in the nineteenth century. That is the collective strength of the great wholesaler. I do not think we in this country will ever get back to that. The collective strength of the wholesaler in Japan is collective in the real sense for he is a banker as well. Through him the finance can be provided and that is a great help.
I wish to say something about the pig-a-back method of the large manufacturer helping the smaller manufacturer. The large manufacturer produces a semi-manufactured product, such as synthetic yarns with which I have been concerned, and can take 20, 30 or 50 manufacturers with him to show in markets overseas examples of what can be made from his product. The big man at the centre, in this case the chemical industry manufacturer, with large resources can face the scale of operation and can be helped

by having manufacturers with him to show examples of what can be produced.
They not only show what can be done; they also sell the products. Sometimes they can enter a market or even the export business for the first time under the comforting umbrella and strength of the large manufacturer who has offices strung across the world and resources and contacts. This is an experiment which certainly should be pursued with the top ten in industry who are leading our exporters. They should be encouraged to look outwards. I know that the B.N.E.C. groups are doing that.
In Sweden in 1957, having failed completely to penetrate the Swedish market, the Swedish agents of my company on the spot advised my board of directors that there was no future for the product in Sweden. That should be daunting enough for any rising young executive. I then had an approach from the second secretary in the Board of Trade, who said, "Surely you are not going to give up after that?" That was a rather challenging statement and I did not give up. By breaking a certain amount of red tape, I persuaded my company to have another go at the Swedish market. It turned out to be successful to the tune of well over £1 million business which subsequently resulted.
That was not only because of advice from the Board of Trade but because of pressure and encouragement. Sometimes an executive in business is encouraged if someone from the Board of Trade gives him a good idea. He can then go to his managing director and say "The Board of Trade says we should do this". One should not be afraid of the Civil Service.
The third point in my summary of how to export is that, having surveyed and measured the scale, there is the need to visit and appoint an agent in order to make a deal. The fourth thing is to support with technical advice. All products today must be supported by continuing and continuous technical advice of a calibre and quality as good as that which is in competition. Fifthly, there is the need for promotion, advertising, merchandising, and follow-up by perhaps a specially trained local sales force which can perform the merchandising task. We should look at what the successful exporter to this country does and we


should remember that this is a very competitive market. We should see how the exporters of Swedish and Finnish foodstuffs work in this country and how successful exporters of drink from France operate their techniques.
Sixthly, there is the need for effective supply in a competitive manner, in proper packing, good shape and on time. The seventh point is most important. These are not once-for-all commando raids but, having established a foothold on the beachhead, we must go on to the bridgehead and expand and hold a portion of that market. That will mean more regular visits to achieve such expansion. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade is still present and that I have not bored him too much with this child's guide to what he already knows.
At home we still need more information and persuasion. This may have to come from more things than print and advertising, which I am not against. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to see that his officers get out into industry even more than they do to hold seminars, meetings and conferences, to show those in industry the opportunities and explain to them that the difficulties may not be as big as they think.
My only criticism overseas is that commercial officers in our embassies should try to become even more detailed and experienced in their knowledge of the market, and of the manufacture, too, of products from this country. It is mentioned, wisely and rightly, in the Report that it would help enormously if, by visiting the factories, our commercial officers had a glimpse of some of the principal products which go to other countries. It is possible to speak with some authority when one can say, "When I was in England last week, I visited the Rover factory and I have seen exactly how they make a Land Rover", or describe a visit to the textile industry, the standards and machinery of which are second to none. This could be of immense value.
There is a valuable quotation on page 123 of the Report from a paper submitted by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising:
Marketing is the ability of the manufacturer to identify, anticipate and satisfy the

wants of consumers. The theory is sometimes understood by the layman, the practice almost never.
I stress that only because it is a good quotation. It is very true.
We must still go on recognising that marketing and the practice of marketing is so seldom understood. The more information we get, the more we will be able to succeed. What we have to do is not so much to have a greater development of things British in British Weeks. We must seek an extension of our home market into E.F.T.A. and, subsequently, into the rest of the markets we supply in the world.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has said, the joy of an occasion like this for members of the Estimates Committee, like himself and myself, is that it gives an opportunity for other hon. Members to mark our examination papers. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has given us such a good mark. It is also a useful opportunity, and good for our own souls, to mark our own papers a year after the Report was drafted.
I have two broad heads of comment, one on the Diplomatic Service and the other on the Board of Trade. The official claim, which was given to our Committee by the representatives of the Diplomatic Service, was that they were now far more commercially oriented and, since the publication of the Plowden Report, there had been a quiet revolution. That claim was largely accepted by the expert witnesses from industry who appeared before the Committee.
I tried also to test that claim by comparing the official lists of our representatives overseas, which I last saw in 1964 when I was a member of the Diplomatic Service, with the present-day list for 1969. It struck me markedly that there is, at least in terms of personnel, a far greater emphasis on the commercial side although there certainly are some rather unusual exceptions which, perhaps, the Val Duncan Report will help to iron out—for example, that in a country like Thailand, of the 23 officers of third secretary rank and above, only two have a specific commercial designation. Similarly, in


Morocco, of the nine officers, third secretarys and above, only one has a specific commercial designation.
There may be special factors in those markets of which I am unaware, but, certainly, the overall story is of a considerable change since the publication of the Plowden Report. More commercial officers are No. 2 in the post and, from a subjective test, it certainly appears that some of the ablest members of the diplomatic service are now in commercial posts. This should be so. As the B.N.E.C. representatives said to our Committee in reply to Question 174:
…in a country like Canada…there is not much else for them to do.
In other words, in many countries the only justification for a British overseas presence is commercial. That is the only justification in some and the major justification in most. All decisions in terms of staffing should now be taken in the light of this overall priority.
I suspect that old traditions still die a little hard and that the inner circle—the European posts—are still, perhaps, given rather too much cachet in the present service. As a quick example, two very large contracts have been gained by this country, each worth over £100 million, in the relatively small market of Libya. In a relatively unsophisticated country like that, with immense oil revenues, the returns per commercial man placed there are likely to be far greater than in a more developed market like Italy, for example. I hope that suitably, too, the cachet which will ensue to a commercial man in a post of that sort will, in time, post-Plowden, post-Val Duncan, be greater than of his counterpart in the inner circle-type posts.
The reply to recommendation (9) on the status of locally-recruited officers was that it is common for such officers to supervise the work of the home-based staff. It would be interesting to know what level of home-based staff are supervised by those officers. Clearly, career officers should be forewarned and told to expect to learn in this way.
One of the frequent criticisms made by industry is that the commercial officers are moved about too quickly and do not stay long enough in one post. There never seems to have been any trial of the

sort of experiment that one saw in the old Oriental counsellors, where a person could be a fully integral member of an embassy at senior rank, at least at the level of counsellor, and have a specific commercial designation.
I know of at least one Western European post where, on the political side, there is a person of counsellor rank—at least, there was until recently—who had remained in the post for over 20 years. There still seems to be a reluctance to try, on a sort of Oriental counsellor basis, to set up a man of experience who will spend his whole time at a senior level on the commercial side of an embassy.
It is in the Diplomatic Service that one should examine rather more the scope for the extension of British houses, particularly in various Continental posts where, in one building, one can, for the convenience of the British exporter, group together the local British banks, the local representative of the chamber of commerce, the B.E.A. representative and, of course, the commercial section of the embassy.
One problem which, perhaps, has not been given sufficient prominence is the relative inexperience of most Board of Trade officers, particularly in the Commercial Relations and Export Divisions, and, especially since the demise of the old Trade Commissioner Service, lack of experience abroad of the problem from the point of view of the post abroad. I hope that the problem of exchanges between the C.R.E. branch of the Department and posts abroad can be looked at perhaps, more closely by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
One general problem touched on by the right hon. Gentleman is that as it is a Government Department, subject to political pressures, it dare not be too selective. I welcome the evidence given by my right hon. Friend that official services are becoming more selective, but the problem remains. The vast bulk of our exporting is done by relatively few firms and on a cost-benefit basis probably our best returns would be by concentrating on them rather than going in for what is often the time-wasting procedure of assisting very small companies which one is convinced are unlikely to give the returns to this country.
It would also be useful to know who our exporters are. Then when we are, as we hope, more selective, we shall know in respect of whom we should be more selective. Here I take up a point made by the right hon. Gentleman, and which was made to our Committee by the representatives of the C.B.I.
I also take up the point made by my right hon. Friend that there should be a survey of the various branches of the Board of Trade dealing with export promotion, and I follow up my intervention then that a problem for our exporters, underlined to our Sub-Committee by the C.B.I. representatives, is the proliferation of agencies, governmental semi-governmental and non-governmental which face them—the export Services Branch, the C.O.I., the "Little Neddies", the B.N.E.C., the C.B.I itself, and the chambers of commerce, all operating largely in the same field.
It is the usual British story. In a nutshell, it is Topsy with an added large dash of Parkinson. That is why the C.B.I. urged a study by a well-qualified individual with the objectives set out on page 103 of the Report. To meet the case for selectivity and the political difficulty I mentioned earlier, it is at least worth considering the case for a semi-independent body, a national export agency, which I understand almost got off the ground around 1965.
With regard to the question of Topsy and Parkinson, the institutions which just develop and gather bureaucratic and Civil Service-like tendencies, the history of the B.N.E.C. well illustrates the way in which bodies have been allowed to develop without reference to an overall strategy. I first came across the old Export Council for Europe in 1962, when I was the desk officer in the Export Relations Department of the then Foreign Office. It had only just begun and was a small, fairly friendly organisation with about five executives and five girls. It had achieved considerable success in education and propaganda, particularly with the very useful path-finder missions it had spearheaded to various European markets. It received its financial resources on a matching grant basis.
Seven years later this earlier free-wheeling toddler has developed into a many-headed monster. The new B.N.E.C.

has a staff of about 150 and has formed committees for every area; it has 12 area committees regardless of whether there is a need in that market or an export potential. How, for example, can we justify a special area committee, with the proliferation of the business committee attached to it, for a market like New Zealand or an individual market like Israel, overlapping the many other agencies involved?
The most important change in the B.N.E.C. during this period is that its total normal running expenses are now met by the Government. It has become just another Government agency, with its independence of action eroded. It is expected, we were told in reply to Question 698, that this year only £100,000 will be contributed from the whole of British industry to the work of the B.N.E.C., whereas over the years 1965 to 1968 an average of £300,000 per annum was provided by British industry. One cannot blame ordinary firms for this reluctance to contribute. How can one convince a firm that it should contribute to what is now a Government-sponsored venture?
In criticising the organisation of the B.N.E.C., which I say has been allowed to develop without reference to any total objectives, I do not wish to criticise individual businessmen who have given immense time over the years since its inception, and for whom I have the greatest admiration. But surely a crossroads has now been reached? The B.N.E.C. should be wound up on the grounds that it has achieved its basic aim and become so official that its unique advantages of informal contact with businessmen and the extra flexibility in terms of entertainment, for example, which it formerly enjoyed, have disappeared. All this immense expertise and public spirit of the businessmen should be used as part of a new national export agency.
There is a need to examine the possibility of insisting on payment for some of the services now provided by the Board of Trade. The B.N.E.C. representatives, in Questions 216 and 217, the C.B.I. representatives, in Question 292, and the representatives from the Diplomatic Service, in Question 1110, saw no objection in principle to charging for specific services now provided gratis by the Government. The United States governmental agency already charges for a large portion of its


services to exporters. Why must we imply in our advertising, "Come to us and we shall tell you how to do it without it costing you a penny. Call Export Insurance and get something for nothing"? My reaction to this something-for-nothing philosophy is that it cannot be worth very much, and I am sure that that is the reaction of many business men. It must turn away a fair portion of the potential customers.
We are in danger of molly-coddling industry too much by the refusal to look seriously at the possibility of charging for specific services. If we frighten some faint hearts as a result of charging I am confident that the inquiries received will, therefore, be serious. If the information and advice, the market information research, is worth receiving, it is worth paying for. At the very least we should insist upon payment for things like book lets, "Hints to Businessmen", and possibly the larger-scale market reports.
I would make the same point about the British Weeks, where we have spent a large amount of money on the supporting events—the Welsh choirs, the London buses, and so on, and the ballerinas. There is no reason why the great bulk of these supporting activities should not be self-financing if they are worth having.
On the whole, the Sub-Committee found from the witnesses who came to us a general satisfaction with the quality of the service provided. This perhaps is not surprising, since we were dealing with a group, and there is a sort of social incest amongst the senior members of the Foreign Office, the senior officers of the Board of Trade and the business men who sit on the chief committee of the C.B.I. and who man the relevant committees of the B.N.E.C. There is a special need for an outside body to pry, to ask awkward questions and to ask, as I do, why, for example, we do not insist on payment for specific services, and why there should not be a high-ranking investigation into the proliferation of agencies which now overlap in trying to provide services for our exporters

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I join with hon. Members who have paid tribute to the Sub-Committee on its Report.

To illustrate my point on the E.C.G.D., I will take up the reference which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) made to page 317 of the Report about the problems of further training for staff. In page 318, the E.C.G.D.s memorandum states that various types of guarantee are available and that
Standard variants of the Specific Guarantee are available…special adaptations are 'tailor made' to fit the needs of particular non-standard cases.
I wish to give a glaring example of how this is not being done. I refer to an order from a Danish partnership for a special ship costing £6 million which has been started by Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness and which, if successful, is likely to be followed by orders for three more ships, each to the value of £6 million, the total value of the four ships being about £25 million. The contacts that have been made with the customers in Denmark have led to inquiries about further ships of a different sort to the value of £10 million or £12 million. I say this to emphasise that I am not talking about small beer.
The President of the Board of Trade, when he saw me sitting on the edge of my seat as he was speaking of the E.C.G.D., said that I had a dispute with the E.C.G.D. I personally have no interest whatever in this matter and, therefore, have no dispute My case is based on data contained in a memorandum from the Ionian Bank.
The project concerns a floating package tour hotel or ship. We in this country do not understand much about package tours as they are operated from the United States. All the projections show that the tourist trade will increase at a greater rate than can be coped with by the hotel industry in Europe. Some enterprising Danes hit upon the idea of building a floating hotel to be anchored at a suitable sunny spot off Europe to accommodate tourists on package tours, the ship being geared to travellers arriving in Jumbo jet loads.
The name of the partnership is Nordline. It is important to emphasise that this is a partnership and not a limited company. Because of the operation of the Danish tax laws it is much more advantageous to the Danes to operate as a partnership than as a limited company.
Through their bankers, Glyn Mills, Vickers have sought E.C.G.D. backing to borrow money for the building of the £6 million ship at an interest rate of slightly over 5 per cent. rather than at the commercial rate of 10 or 11 per cent. The difference between these rates of interest amounts to £1¼ million, and that factor will determine whether the order is to be completed in this country or cancelled. The ship has already been started because, as many hon. Members have emphasised, promptness of delivery is essential and, if the ship cannot be delivered by the end of next year, the whole venture will for technical reasons be fruitless.
The E.C.G.D. have stated that the number of Danish partners subscribing three-quarters of the money must be limited to 70, but by the time this was known there were already too many partners to fulfil this requirement. It is a very recent additional condition, and if this is an example of the way in which the E.C.G.D. operates the tributes which have been paid to it cannot be justified.
On 4th November a letter was sent by the E.C.G.D. to Vickers' bankers, Glyn Mills, setting out the conditions on which backing would be given. In my presence the head of E.C.G.D. has said that the letter could be regarded as being as valid as a contract. The letter did not mention the requirement that as few as 70 partners should have subscribed three-quarters of the capital.
The E.C.G.D. sent a further letter on 6th March, again setting out the conditions, but again not mentioning this new condition. It was not until later in March that the new condition emerged, by which time the partnership had been formed with a membership and subscriptions which made fulfilment of the requirement impossible.
In the memorandum from the Ionian Bank, referring to the suggestion by E.C.G.D. that there had been previous notice of this, it was said:
No record or recollection of any such proposal exists, either with ourselves or with Glyn Mills and Company. In fact, this fresh condition was already incapable of fulfilment before it was imposed and in a letter to Sir Anthony Percival"—
head of E.C.G.D.—
Mr. Baird"—

the managing director of the Ionian Bank—
made this point clear, adding that information indicating this fact was in the Department's hands before 18th March.
What is happening is that the rules of the game are being changed as the game is being played. In effect, the ball is ready to be got through the goal and then we are being told that the goal is not there.
Some people may think that there is some validity in the requirement made by E.C.G.D. There are 834 Danish partners, and they are people who are running their own businesses or managing directors of business, professional people, accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, and so on. In a country such as Denmark 834 such people have a great deal of influence. Many of them were active in the Danish Resistance movement and are very keen that this and subsequent orders should be carried out in Britain rather than in Germany from whom approaches were also received. They are strongly pro-British.
There is nothing wrong with their credit. All inquiries suggest that their credit is quite up to the commitment they are making. The Department seems to take the view that unless there are very big people behind the venture, there can be no confidence in it. In Denmark there are particular tax reasons why the set-up is different. Even so, I would have thought that there was a great deal to be said for not having all of one's eggs in the same basket. It may be inconvenient, if anything goes wrong, to have to collect from a lot of small people, but it is not for E.C.G.D. to base its policy on convenience. The question that it is a matter of E.C.G.D.'s convenience is contested but there can be no other explanation, unless it is that E.C.G.D. thinks that because a man is small he is ipso facto uncreditworthy.
When we are talking of people such as these 834 partners, such an assumption can be very damaging, not only to this project but to our trade with Denmark generally. The Minister of State, Board of Trade, Lord Brown, said:
The apparent failure of the Danes to attract anyone who is both able and willing to invest a really substantial sum in this partnership is in my view significant.


All that it is significant of is the Danish tax position and other technical matters. The Danish Ambassador in London has let it be known that from his personal knowledge of many of these people it can be taken that the group is entirely reputable. No weight appears to have been attached to that statement. It is not for the seller of a product to start laying down the constituton of the buyer—the seller has to organise himself to meet the buyer's position. I was brought up to believe that the customer is always right. Unless we take that attitude our exports will suffer.
Another point which illustrates how out of touch E.C.G.D. is with modern conditions, is that an American company which, assuming the project goes through will be operating the American package tour end of the business—Transportation Consultants International—was willing to take up to one-third of the £6 million capital, the desired substantial sum. But E.C.G.D. said that it was "no go", because the company did not have sufficient assets. It is a service company, and service companies do not have great assets, that is not the relevant thing to look at. Any financier or accountant knows that. What has to be looked at is the future earning capacity, not the assets. By its nature, a service company has hardly any assets.
I find this unsatisfactory and perturbing. If the E.C.G.D. is working in a world as out of date as has been illustrated, we shall have to prepare to shelter under cromlechs which were built for our ancestors' burials 4,000 years ago, because that seems about as far into the modern world as E.C.G.D. has got. Until this experience, I thought that E.C.G.D. was a good department doing a good job. That was second-hand information. My only personal experience, in the recent decade, of the E.C.G.D.—this has involved dealing with very senior people—has not enabled me to maintain that opinion. The position is very serious.
Also, E.C.G.D. and Ministers hide behind the Advisory Council of the E.C.G.D., but do not tell us the brief given to the members of that council. I wonder whether the members were told that what they were dealing with was not a ship in the normal sense of the word,

but a floating package tour hotel. Had that been so, the position might have been different.
But the main case is that on 4th November and 6th March written summaries which were said to be as good as contracts were sent to bankers in the City of London and subsequent conditions were then required which were already incapable of fulfilment. That is not good enough.
A previous E.C.G.D. case has come to my notice as a result of my interest in this one. Some time ago, the E.C.G.D. thought that a Pastor Krogager, another Dane, could not run a travel business because he was a pastor. He could. He bought 14 aircraft, and paid for them, but because of E.C.G.D.'s attitude they were not British: they were French Caravelles. He has now bought another 14 and the business has continued to go to France.
The E.C.G.D. does not understand the travel service business or the Danish mentality. The slow and tortuous behaviour which I have described is not good enough. The President of the Board of Trade is responsible, not the Advisory Council. I beg him to look into the matter and bring his influence urgently to bear.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I am very glad that we have had this debate, which has been informative and constructive, because it has been my experience since I have been in the House, during most of which time the country has been in some economic difficulty, that far too many people inside and outside the House tend to look for alibis and temporary devices for solving Britain's difficulties instead of concentrating on the central problem of exporting.
I am glad that this debate has focused attention on the important aspects of this country's paying its way in the world. Those who think about the long term know that a fiscal or idealogical measure will not solve the basic problem of selling goods abroad.
I welcome the Report, but I will not say a great deal about it. It is thorough and comprehensive and shows how good the promotion services are. There are areas of criticism, but they are marginal.


On the whole, industry and exporters are served very well by Government agencies. I hope that the Government will not take too strict a view of public expenditure and decline to do useful things because they involve additional public money.
A letter from the Board of Trade on page 358, replying to the Sub-Committee on proposals by the British National Export Council that certain bodies should be grant-aided for their expenditure on export promotion, stated:
The answer to this is that, at the present time, we should find it specially difficult to accept proposals for broadening the scope of, and lessening the control over, the expenditure of public money, even for export promotion
I hope that that sort of attitude towards public expenditure will not prevent the Government from doing something useful where there is long-term advantage to exports. I hope that they will not be inhibited from spending money on a national exhibition centre. I listened attentively to what my right hon. Friend said about the possibility of an exhibition centre at Northolt and the frustrations he has experienced. If it is not possible to go ahead there, I hope that he will not close his mind to a development, through partnership between central and local government, of an exhibition centre at Crystal Palace.
Following the opening of the Victoria Line, and with the other train services, there are excellent communications between that area and the centre of London. There is also the plan to take a motorway near Crystal Palace, which will provide good communications with the rest of the country. There are also train connections with Gatwick. I hope that such a development, as part of a central redevelopment scheme, will not be left out of mind.
I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who devoted so much time to marketing and selling. The Report emphasises follow-up and marketing by individual firms. I think that we spend too much time in general exhortation and advertising and too little on selling the idea of exporting to individual firms.
We must not perpetuate the image that the Government can do everything. In exporting, the Government can only provide the framework of services. Ultimately, it is people and industries that

must do the job within that framework. The idea of a follow-up to industries and individual salesmanship by individual firms is very valuable.
One of the most telling sentences in the Report is on page 359, with reference to the practices of some other countries. It says, for example:
Germany provides very little in the way of financial assistance to exporters…
That is rather revealing when one thinks of the success which German exporters have had. Why is there such a difference between the performance of Germany with so little financial help, and this country's which provides so much?
I must say frankly that there is still not enough financial incentive here for people who want to export. When considering the problems of packaging, of complying with foreign regulations—such as safety regulations for cars or regulations about artificial substances in sweets—along with the difficulties of documentation, and of getting goods through ports and obtaining credit, as well as the risks abroad, it is sometimes surprising that many figrms go to the trouble of exporting. A financial incentive is needed for exporters.
I thought it a great pity that at the time of devaluation tax rebates for exporters were withdrawn. In Germany industrialists receive tax incentives to encourage them to export, there is the advantage of the value-added tax, which I personally do not support, and there is a system which involves the lifting of tax on goods before they go over the borders of the country.
We in this country must do something to make up for all the advantages possessed by other countries. The Government should seriously consider giving additional tax incentives to industries which are prepared to export goods so as to compensate for the extra difficulties in which they are involved in having to sell abroad. Those incentives should be provided not just for a company in rebate on its corporation tax, but should be passed on to the worker concerned in the export of goods.
Exporting is a partnership between the management and the workers. Instead of an exhortation or general directive to people in the mass to try to do better,


the worker on the shop floor who plays a very full part in ensuring that delivery dates are kept and that goods are kept up to standard should be given an incentive rather than just the shareholders and other people.
When we compare the incentives given to people in this country with those given to some of our foreign competitors—and one must bear in mind that we do not operate import controls—at the end of the day all the valuable services, which I do not denigrate in the slightest since they are excellent and the follow-up in salesmanship, which I and other hon. Members have recommended, should be combined with financial incentives. I trust that the Government will not put this matter out of their mind.
I hope that the Government will ensure that credit and investment facilities are channelled to exporters. I do not know what follow-up there has been with the banks. I wonder whether the individual bank manager is even capable of distinguishing between an importer and an exporter in providing a line of credit. It is a difficult job for a bank manager to undertake.
I hope that the Government will provide, as do other European countries, sources of credit specifically reserved for exporters not to finance a particular sale, but to build up their factories, particularly in the congested South-East. They should provide clear ways for exporters—clear ways in the physical sense of better roads to the docks, in the sense that documentation is made easy, that the exporter may be given the extra packing and storage facilities that he needs and is able to obtain his industrial development certificates and planning permission relatively quickly, and so that there is a sense of priority for exporters.
Clearways in exports, as well as clearways through towns, will enable Britain to make a full and successful contribution in exporting throughout the world.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I should like to apologise for not having been present to hear all the earlier speeches in this debate, but I had to attend a meeting at the Board of Trade concerning aircraft noise in my constituency.
I did, however, have the opportunity of hearing the wide-ranging survey with which the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) began the debate, and I add my congratulations to him for his work as Chairman of the Sub-Committee and to the rest of the members of the Committee for providing this Report. The Report gives an opportunity to cast an eye over this important area of Government activity.
If the eye that I cast is a rather critical one, it is not because I do not appreciate the immense amount of work put into the export services and export promotion. Nor is it that I do not appreciate the work that went into this Report. It is simply because this is, after all, a debate and not a tribal indaba. Still less is it an admiration society for the Board of Trade. Therefore, I do not apologise for making my marking of the Report a little more jarring than some hon. Members have.
There is an almost inevitable view in comments about export promotion services of government that there should be more of them. People say in every gathering that we want more training for commerical officers, more commercial posts, more services, and more of this and that. It is a view which prevails in current policy and has done for some time. It has led to a considerable growth in the export bureaucracy of our Administration and to the provision of a wide range of services, some of which are excellent but others of which are not so excellent.
In considering this Report and the answers to it from the Board of Trade, it is right to begin by recognising that those who call for a larger and extended rôle for the Government's export services are creating for themselves a serious and basic dilemma. I was not a member of the Sub-Committee, but I see in its Report one or two hints of an awareness of that dilemma.
In paragraph 9, the Committee says:
The suggestion that the export services should be commercially managed is not, in Your Committee's view, without merit.
It goes on:
If the Government was starting from scratch in this field they might be well advised to consider setting up a public corporation rather than using a Government department.


That seems to have in it a faint hint that possibly something more radical in the nature of change is needed than anything proposed in the Report.
Paragraph 11 says:
Your Committee have considered whether it is on balance, an advantage or a disadvantage to have export promotion work handled by a Department which exercises a wide range of regulatory functions.
Here again there is a faint hint of unease that perhaps we may be allocating responsibilities and functions in a way which is basically contradictory.
And, of course, on the surface, there is indeed a contradiction and a dilemma. The great Departments of State are filled with people who are highly trained in regulatory and advisory work, yet the business of export promotion and the targetting of advice for particular export promotions is a highly managerial, competitive and business-like undertaking requiring many of the qualities which, for better or worse, are not the most common and not usually found in the Departments of State.
It is on to the Board of Trade that this kind of dilemma is shoved. We all know that it is a Department which has clung for many years to a belief in the principles of regulated free trade and the doctrines associated with it. Despite moving its building and changing its personnel, that belief still seems to impregnate the wallpaper and carpets of the Department.
For a Department like that, the problems of reconciling the traditions of Departmental bureaucracy, and the traditional emphasis on non-selectivity and on a free and regulated flow of trade round a world which no longer exists with the new requirements obviously raises particular difficulties. How have we in recent years gone about facing those difficulties? I go back to the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who made reference to a line in this Report, on which I already had a note for my speech, a noteworthy coincidence. The hon. Gentleman referred to page 359 where, in a list of services provided by other countries, it has been noted by the Diplomatic Service Administration Office that Germany
Provides very little in the way of official assistance to exporters…".

From personal experience, that does not quite tally with the way that some West German embassies work. But as an analysis of the official assistance and involvment of Departments in export, it is no doubt correct.
That is one answer. We know how West Germany has answered the dilemma about which I am talking. That country has a fantastic export record, as the hon. Member for Norwood reminded us. They have answered the problem by keeping their export services and promotional research facilities out of the control of central Government Departments.
We have chosen, or there has been chosen for us by the course of events, a very different kind of procedure. We have gone more for the "Let there be more Government activity in export" philosophy. As a result, there has inevitably grown up over the years a vast range of committees, boards and activities. One of the most recent is the Overseas Marketing Corporation, of which I shall say more in a moment.
It is at least worth asking, although the Estimates Committee may have felt that it was beyond the range of its immediate report, whether our direction of policy, so different from the German direction and so indifferent to the basic dilemma about which I spoke earlier, is the right one. It is worth recognising that if we continue to pursue a policy of pouring a large range of resources into these services within the control of Departments and of Government, certain results which can already be spotted will grow in importance.
The first and obvious result is that we shall have to ask more of our highly able officials and civil servants, trained as such, to act not as officials and civil servants but as business men. Is that fair, is that right, is that sensible? We will see a world in which more of our embassy staffs round the world, who have already thrown themselves with enthusiasm into the business of assimilating, translating and distributing commercial knowledge, will find pressure on them to behave more like business men. We will see consul-generals scurrying round more as salesmen. This may be the right philosophy. Certainly recent reports seem to think this, and nearly everyone who has spoken in the


debate has welcomed the commercialisation of our diplomatic service.
As the debate draws to a close, I put a question-mark over that and ask whether there is a danger that we could go too far in the view that these services must be carried out by central Government, by the civil servants, by the diplomatic service, and that they must, therefore, fulfil functions which businessmen apparently do not feel inclined to fulfil.
This kind of philosophy means an enormous preoccupation—a point that we have all noted—with visible trade—with the products that officials can recognise and the firms and sources from which they come. The very nature of invisible earnings inevitably means that the Government, while welcoming the trends in these spheres, are not very much involved in them because they are not things on which Government officials can easily get their hands. It seems, in short, that we are building up for ourselves a world in which the additional margin of export performance which we seek is something which people lean more and more on the Government miraculously to produce. It means that we are building up a world in which everyone expects the Government to "do something" about exports, and I suspect that this is the parent philosophy from which another child springs—the belief that the Government can devalue the currency by 14·3 per cent. and thus miraculously transform life for our export salesmen.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about the story of devaluation since November 1967, it certainly has not turned out the way people argued at the time. It has not transformed life for our export salesmen. Even the most devoted apologists of devaluation policy find it hard to argue that, and I see in the most recent Economic Review of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research some interesting analyses and arguments confirming what many of us who have had doubts about the whole philosophy would have thought and argued from the first—that these are not problems which Governments can automatically solve.
The alternative proposition which is that the Government should do very nearly nothing, is in our context equally

absurd. There are obviously major regulatory functions in the tariff and fixed fields for the Government to perform. The Government are major buyers in the modern world. This is the difference between the world as it exists, and the world as the Board of Trade used to see it, even if it does not see it quite that way now. Public authorities buying habits are vastly influenced by other Governments. I thought that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools was right to give so much emphasis to the fact that we are living in a world in which diplomatic pressure, to put it at its crudest, is one of the important adjuncts to the export process. The hon. Gentleman was right to sound a warning that we may be adhering so zealously to the creeds, practices, and regulations of international trade that we are endangering our position vis-à-vis other countries which may not be "playing cricket' quite so strenuously and devotedly.
The Government have a major export promotion rôle. Whether it is as detailed and expansive as the one for which some hon. Members have called this afternoon I am not sure, but that civil servants as civil servants and not as businessmen have a vitally important rôle to play seems to be absolutely axiomatic.
If we look at the whole problem from the slightly different emphasis that I have given, if we draw breath and stop calling for more Government services and endless action, we begin to see rather a different emphasis arising in the need for policy in the future.
First—and this was the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—the course which follows from rather less Government preoccupation in this matter is that we move away from trying to get the Government to do more, and towards encouraging business to do more. That is an obvious point, but it is worth repeating. In other words, we must move towards tax stimulus, towards the kind of tax structure which gives rebates to exporters. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Norwood. I favour the introduction of a value-added tax, although there will be many difficulties, and I welcome the news that a report is coming from the Government. I hope it will not say that the thing is enormously administratively difficult, because if it does it


will be wrong. I believe that there are ways in which this could be introduced at very low administrative cost. I hope that we shall not be dogged by that gremlin of "administrative difficulty" which has sunk so many other good ideas.
There is that kind of incentive. There is the even more direct financial incentive to salesmen, to hard selling, to people to score big earnings by selling directly in world markets. This seems to me to be so obvious as not to brook argument, yet the situation persists in which personal income incentives are low. Therefore, higher paid salesmen is an obvious policy goal.
There is a third way in which tax incentives come into this story, this time at the level of the weekly wage earner—the £30, £40 and £50 wage earners. I had an interesting experience the other day when I visited an aerodrome where one of our most exciting export products, the Harrier, is undergoing its development programme. I learned that, as it was a Saturday morning, although about 45 men should have been working on the programme, there were only three in the shop and that the reason was that their tax position was such that it did not pay them to come in on a Saturday. So the development of one of our most exciting potential exports is being slowed down, apparently by lack of tax incentives. That is obviously the first difference of emphasis which flows from considering the Government's export promotion services in the different light earlier suggested.
The second issue is one which we have all mentioned—the "gentlemanliness" problem. With respect to the President of the Board of Trade, he missed the point on this which other hon. Members were making. They were not saying, and I certainly would not claim, that our behaviour over E.F.T.A., and import deposits and so on has been perfect. Of course it has not. It has caused a major row, and I was one of the many who criticised the way in which we introduced import deposits and the 10 per cent. surcharge. The question which we were discussing was whether it is right for a nation like ours, a huge consumer and customer, and one with great diplomatic skills—providing they are not submerged by excessive demands for commercialism in the diplomatic service—uses those dip-

lomatic skills and its customer weight to ensure that certain major orders, where foreign Governments are the major customer or influence the final decision, are fought for in a sufficiently ruthless and tough way.
The sort of thing that I have in mind is a case in which the British and the Americans might be competing for desalination or other heavy equipment in Italy, and the Italian Government is the customer. One wonders what kind of comparison the language which the Americans and the British use would make. I suspect—and I am generalising from a particular experience which I do not want to specify—that the Americans would make it clear that, unless the order went to their firm, there might be questions raised of certain health provisions on Italian exports of say, tomatoes and so on being applied more rigorously the next year. I suspect that the excessive gentlemanliness of the British of which we have spoken might prevent us making any such improper suggestion, with the result that the Americans would get the deal.
So there is a case for urging, not that we smash up more treaties or rush through panic measures for raising import surcharges or putting on import deposits, but that we go about major projects in a way which makes full use of our diplomatic weight and skill—not that we cheat, but that we are at least as skilful and ruthless as others in securing the major orders.
The third thing which flows from the difference of emphasis which I am trying to give this issue is that the Government should at least halt and think again before plunging into more committees, that they should at least go through the exercise suggested by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) of evaluating the rôle and status of B.N.E.C. and perhaps other agencies also. I have in mind the Overseas Marketing Corporation, which has been going about a year, and about which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, the Minister of State, Board of Trade, was quoted as saying yesterday that he never thought that it was good idea anyway. Here is an organisation which has been set up, which has guarantees of substantial sums of public money and which has obviously involved much energy and time but which, as far as I know, has yet produced any orders for anybody. Perhaps I am


considering the matter unfairly, but is it not possible that this kind of growth in the structure of export services results from a general, blind, good will belief that the Government must somehow do more?
I have an indirect interest in this matter in that I help to advise a firm which in turn advises on export opportunities, particularly in Europe. It is not merely because of that interest or the experience gained from providing that advice that I ask whether organisations like the Overseas Marketing Corporation are fulfilling the function for which they were set up and whether a basically sound argument led to their being set up in the first place.
I understand that the O.M.C. was intended to help small companies to find opportunities in Eastern Europe. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Monmouth—about business men, officials and others who seem to know each other and live in the same sort of world—is there not a danger that, because this organisation comes from that ilk, small companies will find it difficult to extract opportunities from it or make use of it? Given that the O.M.C. has so far produced zero orders yet has £400,000 of public money at its disposal, this question should be answered because it is an important subject and the money involved is not chicken feed.
The fourth different kind of policy which emerges from considering export services in a slightly less dewy-eyed way is mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Estimates Committee's Report and touched on in its recommendations; the idea that the export services of Government should be amalgamated into one recognisable body, that it should operate in an ethos of enterprise on a profit basis, that it should be a recognisable, separate organisation hived off from the main Departmental body and that it should, therefore, operate in an atmosphere not contaminated by the traditions of the Board of Trade.
The President said that his mind was not closed and that he might, in due course, think of conducting an inquiry on the structure of Government export services. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman need be so cagey and

always preface any suggestion for any sort of institutional change with the suggestion that there must be yet another inquiry. It has become a hallmark of the present Administration that inquiries should be held on virtually everything. The Government will no doubt finally sink under this weight of inquiries, along with all the boards, committees and other organisations that they have set up.
I do not see, in this instance, why another inquiry is required to amalgamate the export services of Government, to hive them off and to give them a bit more zip in a private enterprise sense so that, for providing services of value, they can make a charge and possibly set up a kind of organisation which could offer private equity as well. This may be heresy to true-born Socialists, but if an organisation of this kind is to work with gumption, this is the way it should operate.
The touching belief that more committees and more activities by the excellent and hard-worked officials of the Board of Trade will somehow produce more exports is illusory, just like the belief in November, 1967, that devaluation would miraculously produce a better deal for export salesmen and a vast upsurge in exports. That, too, have proved illusory, as the growing amount of documentation shows.
The real transformation will come only when the Government overhaul their commercial policy, when the whole tax structure is tilted in the direction of profitable exporting, when we are ready to us our diplomatic skill—if it has not been destroyed by then—in pushing major projects ruthlessly and ensuring that we sell in competition with others and hive off the export services of government. If the Government will perform their rôle of governing in this field and act in the way they can and are trained to act, vast help can be given to exporters to get on with the business of exporting profitably. But if Government personnel are forced against their training and instinct to pretend to be businessmen and better than businessmen, we are in for many difficulties and disappointments.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I do not propose to pursue the hon. Member


for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) in his canter round the whole of his party's policy in a vain endeavour to find a solution to some of the problems we have been discussing. Neither can I say that I have many important and intimate friends as the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) who can buy 14 Caravelles. I cannot claim that I have performed the magnificent feats in exporting that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has, although I admit that in 1961 I helped to erect a shed in Alberta, Canada.
I congratulate, as I am sure all my hon. Friends do, my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) on his chairmanship of a Sub-Committee which has produced a very thought-provoking Report. I wish that many of the speeches made from either side of the House in this debate had kept to that Report because in it many valuable suggestions have been advanced. There are many excellent ideas in the Report which, if followed, could make a significant contribution to the promotion of our export services.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), I well remember the time when we studied with a combination of fear and fanaticism the monthly reports from the Board of Trade about balance of payments figures. It seems long overdue that we should get down to a study of what we are actually doing in various Government Departments to help to provide a disincentive to importers or more incentives to exporters. I am, therefore, glad that we have at last been given an opportunity to have a look at what I and many hon. Friends regard as the real meat of what ought to be the export drive.
I have been concerned in my constituency in trying to organise a trade mission. I have come into contact with several of the staff of the Board of Trade both in this country and abroad. I have been very much encouraged by many of those I have met. I have been very much encouraged, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House have been, by what obviously is an increase in their commercial expertise.
I cannot help feeling, however, that although tonight we have made many references to the praiseworthy improve-

ment in the commercial outlook of our Board of Trade officers overseas, we have been prone to overlook that although their outlook may have improved we have tended to increase the demands made upon them. We now have a situation where because their outlook has improved more is expected of them and in certain places of which I know and I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade knows they are now becoming seriously overworked.
When I was in Sweden, last month, both in Stockholm and in Gothenburg I found that there was a rather similar complaint. Because more and more people are getting to know of the services that we can provide, our officers, although they are doing a good job, find themselves hard-pressed. I encountered a rather similar situation in the United States last year, when, having visited the Board of Trade officials and our consuls-general in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and New York, again there was a similar story because increased expectations were being placed on our officers. They are really hard put to it to accomplish successfully some of the increasing work which is now coming their way.
One of the things which contributes to the increase in the amount of work which our officers are now asked to do is the very success of the trade mission scheme. That scheme, which is jointly operated by the hydra-headed monster the combination of the Board of Trade and the B.N.E.C., is indeed performing an invaluable service in providing a preliminary introduction to the market for many firms which have not exported before. It is a scheme whereby people do not break into a new country before they can do so at a reasonable cost, because the Government pay something towards their expenses.
I do not say that all the trips which have been made under this scheme have been bona fide or successful, but it can be said by anybody who has taken the trouble to study the operation of the trade mission scheme that it has, at least, been successful in getting people who would not normally have been able to do so to break the barrier into exports. I therefore feel that we should extend coverage of this scheme to a slightly wider base.
At present, missions have to be sponsored by chambers of commerce, trade associations and, as we are told in the recommendations and in the Report, by the British export houses. I suggest that we could broaden the base even more. It is acceptable if one comes from a part of the country like Birmingham, where the chamber of commerce is expert and active in organising missions, but not all chambers of commerce are as active and as expert and send out as many missions as does the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. I certainly know of less active chambers. I therefore hope that it will be passed on to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the application of the scheme should be broadened and a wider selection of groups encouraged.
I am not saying that we can go quite to the same extent that various groups of people who want to travel more cheaply on commercial airlines have been able to do, but something in this direction is needed to obtain an even wider application of the scheme, which in its initial stages has been tremendously successful. I hope that people in my constituency, with the scheme which I have been trying to get off the ground, can benefit from a wider application and a wider selection of bases and sponsoring organisations for these trade missions.
Having said that, I cannot help feeling that we are not making the best use of some of the staff that we already have in our overseas commercial departments. It is widely acknowledged, although it has not been mentioned widely this evening, that our embassies and consular staff always have to work closely in co-operation with the various British chambers of commerce. In America it is the British-American Chamber of Commerce and in Sweden, the British-Swedish Chamber of Commerce.
As I was going round the United States last year, and again this year, it was put to me that we might be able to improve the coverage, finding contacts and agents and sorting out firms and introductions if we could place more emphasis on the work we do in co-operation with the various British chambers of commerce.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we examine the possibility of using even more local people from those countries

where we have our commercial departments to help us in these endeavours. We often face a very expensive task in finding accommodation, office space and contacts for British citizens who are going out and in some cases performing the job very successfully. Could not we obtain an even more widely based coverage by using people born in the countries in which we are setting up departments, using their local knowledge and offices and facilities? I am sure that by doing this, based on the successful experience we have had with the various British chambers of commerce, we could help our hard-pressed commercial staffs.
Here we have two very successful bases from which we can have an even wider introduction to export markets for people in this country to whom exporting seems to present something of a barrier. We have the trade mission scheme. Let us extend it and make it more widely available. We also have the close contacts between our commercial people and the British chambers of commerce. Let us extend them and make them more widely available by using more locally-born and based people.
One of the other things we could do to introduce even more people to what is often the very new and strange field of exporting is to have the Board of Trade or the B.N.E.C. make a more significant contribution by positively vetting—I hate to use that phrase in this context, but I think that it is the one most applicable—some of the many courses in exporting being put on up and down the country.
It seems to be highly fashionable for a local authority running a technical college or college of further education, and for private enterprise, to put on a course dealing with exports. All one has to do is to bring along someone who has been abroad and knows something about the subject and very often one can charge firms quite large sums for bringing in their sales and marketing people, sometimes tying them up for days on end for something that has not yet been independently evaluated.
There is a rôle for the Board of Trade, perhaps in combination with the B.N.E.C. or even the Department of Education and Science, to do some independent vetting of many of the courses now being put on and involving increasing sums of money and increasing numbers of people, often


without independent observers being in a position to see that some value is obtained from all this. There is a great deal of knowledge of exporting to be disseminated, and a great need for this to be done. But I should like to see more evaluation of the knowledge that is already being imparted.
It has been said several times this evening, not least by the hon. Member for Guildford, that we are now perhaps approaching the parting of the ways or the point of no return on the question of whether export advice should be provided mainly on a public enterprise basis through a public corporation or mainly through private enterprise. There have been several references to export consultants. Here is a great opportunity for someone who is young, wants to travel and has a few contacts abroad. There have also been references to the British chambers of commerce, the British National Export Council and the Board of Trade.
I add to the appeals made from both sides of the House for a unification of the various export activities. I disagree with one hon. Member opposite who said that the more independent agencies we could have the more view points we could obtain. We must have a central co-ordinating body which can at least tell newcomers where to go. Very often they are confronted with a whole string of independent organisations, with no means of evaluating the rival claims which they often assiduously make. Let us have more co-ordination at the centre. To do that we must make sure that we keep in contact with industry and with private enterprise. It is private industry that will have to do the exporting.
I was interested in the suggestion that there should be more exchanges between the Board of Trade, the Civil Service and private industry. Recommendation 2 states:
The Commercial Relations and Exports Divisions of the Board of Trade should renew their efforts to effect changes of staff with industry and should make regular visits to major exporters.
I am told, although I was not then a member of the Estimates Committee, that the Board of Trade showed great enthusiasm and waxed extremely eloquently about this. The Board of Trade said, "It is exactly the kind of thing we have always been in favour of, and we are now encouraging it for all we are

worth." It is rather surprising, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade, after having said that it is the policy of the Board to promote exchanges of staff with industry, should say that in recent years
three young men from industry had worked in the Board, of whom two spent their time with the Commercial Relations and Exports Divisions, and that another man on loan from industry will shortly join the C.R.E.".
That is four men—yet the Board of Trade is supposed to be very interested and thinks that it is a good idea.
If the Board of Trade is serious in getting an active exchange of information and personnel between the Civil Service and private industry, it must be much more active than just employing three men on an exchange basis. We must extend the scope, make exchanges on a more regular basis and for varying terms of contract.
Constituency Members will have made excellent pleas tonight for the national exhibition centre to be sited in their constituencies. I could do the same. I represent a constituency which is sited in the middle of the country, accessible to the Midlands and the East Midlands, and to London by motorway and electric train. It might be unfair of me, after all the constituency plugs which have been given, to say that my constituency has a rival claim, but, wherever the national exhibition centre is concentrated, let us decide and get down to it quickly. We cannot afford to shilly-shally. We cannot afford to put this off, as we have done with public transport access to Heathrow and with jumbo jets.
Let us decide now where the national exhibition centre is to be. If it is to be in the Midlands I hope that it will be in my constituency. If it is to be in London or the South-East I would not like to decide between the rival claims that have been advanced this evening. But let us not have the arguments that have arisen over the siting of the third London Airport. If the siting of the centre takes as long as that, I have not much hope of seeing it even in my lifetime and, compared with some hon. Members who have been here, that is a long time, I hope.
This is a more urgent problem than some problems which we have been discussing. We have been talking about the next step and what gestures must be


made. Many of the suggestions that have been made will take an extremely long time to implement. The announcement of the site of this exhibition centre, and of the inauguration date and the letting of the contracts would be a fine gesture and should be undertaken soon.
Once again, I commend my hon. Friend for the excellent Report. If my right hon. Friend will take a little notice of what I and my hon. Friends have said, I hope that he will derive a good deal of benefit from it.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I will confine my remarks to the philosophy laid out in paragraph 9 of the Report, to which reference has already been made. Before doing so I cannot let pass the denial of complacency by the right hon. Gentleman, and say how impossible it is to reconcile that with what was said by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). I, too, had noted the paragraph in which the President of the Board of Trade, with complacency, had replied as to the achievements in getting three people transferred from industry. That was the pattern of some of the answers appearing in the President of the Board of Trade's replies.
There is a weakness in the structure and a need to revise it to deal with export promotion. Some emphasis is laid on the need for business to promote further use of the Telex. Many hon. Members have received, as I have, letters from exporters who find that they cannot use the Telex because it is overcrowded. The Postmaster-General tells them that it will be a long time before there will be the equipment to provide them with the service they need. This makes a nonsense of the President of the Board of Trade's statement that the more widespread use of Telex, particularly by British firms, would be welcomed.
I regret that there is no recommendation made, and therefore no comment on, the question of the lack of continuity in overseas posts. I have travelled fairly considerably overseas in connection with exports and looking at export services, in another capacity. I have found that the complaint is still that there is a lack of continuity in the postings, although it is less now than

it was a year or two ago. A man is transferred after a few years, just when he is becoming of real value. That is not refuted in the Report.
The only comment made suggests that it is right that an official should be moved before he gets stale. I contrast this with what I believe would be the commercial approach. It is also said in the Report that 35 locally-engaged officers attend training each year. For the biggest selling operation in the country this is an insignificant number.
I find difficulty in accepting that a short course of training can turn career diplomats into the commercial salesmen we need. Their training and background produces different qualities from those needed by the export marketing men required in the overseas posts. There must be horses for courses. I received a letter today from a largish exporting firm containing the response it met in an important city. I will pass it on to the right hon. Gentleman later. The writer complains of the way in which he was received. Because it was the Queen's Birthday when he arrived no one was able to attend to an important matter of business and the standard of service was extremely disappointing. In fairness he contrasted this with the excellent way in which he was treated at the Tokyo Embassy.
I turn to the theme of the philosophy referred to in paragraph 9. I believe that the Government's rôle in exporting is to sell Britain and that of the exporters is to sell goods. Between the two is the "No Man's Land" filled with a variety of Government, quasi-Government, and commercial bodies. We have the rôles of the various services of the Board of Trade and the British National Export Council.
I am sorry that some hon. Members have been unfairly derogatory of that council, and I believe that hon. Members should pay tribute to the work of its voluntary members and its staff. Of course we should consider its future rôle. There are also the various chambers of commerce, of varying degrees of ability, at home and overseas and those firms whose job it is to export—the traditional merchant houses, confirming houses and so on, who have for generations been in this trade to make a profit and have done so very well for Britain's exports.
I believe that, over recent years, we have allowed the Government's rôle to trespass into this no man's land to the detriment of our export effort. It should be confined to selling Britain, providing the political support for that effort, seeing that overseas aid is used in a way most helpful to British exporters, and to providing information on national projects. But Ministries lack the commercial training, the continuity and the profit motive to make a good job of being export marketeers.
I ask, if the Board of Trade drew back from those activities over which it has been expanding its influence, what should take its place? I regret that, having posed the question in paragraph 9, the Committee did not go a little further. It said that, if starting from scratch, it would have preferred a public corporation, but that that might cause more problems than it would solve. Earlier today, the right hon. Gentleman told me that an inquiry into that aspect of export services should be considered at some future date. I do not believe that it will wait: it should be done now.
We must have, if not an inquiry—inquiries lead to further inquiries—a policy. We should get this middle ground, between the rôle of Government and that of the exporter filled first by those firms with the profit motive, the export houses and so on. They should have the further incentives to expand their interest in helping British exporters.
Secondly, so far as it is necessary to have a further co-ordinated effort to carry out the rôle now being performed in so many ways by the Board of Trade, this should be done by a publicly-owned commercial corporation, which could provide market research, deal with overseas exhibitions and fairs and work with all existing export agenies. It should be commercially staffed and profit-making: it should charge fees. I agree that people appreciate services more if they pay for them, since they then believe that they will get value for money and will use it wisely and well.
Such a corporation should not be subsidised, but should be profit-making, perhaps having a pump-priming loan to start with. I do not necessarily suggest the pattern of the Overseas Marketing Corporation, which has had its problems.

No more than my right hon. Friend am I trying to produce a blueprint of what should take its place. But the export effort in future should be placed firmly on the shoulders of those who export and the Government's rôle should be that of a diplomatic selling of Britain and helping in the ways I have outlined. The gap between the two should be filled, preferably by the expansion of banking and export houses. Any part not filled should be undertaken by a public and commercial corporation.
The President of the Board of Trade should look again at the way other countries fill this rôle—Italy, Germany, the United States, France and Japan. I have made some examination of their methods and what stands out in all of them is that the main commercial bodies are controlled by business men and not by Government, and that the element of subsidy from these bodies to exporters appears to be very small. The success of German exports does not appear to relate to the subsidy exporters receive from central Government bodies, Germany has strong chambers of Trade which have played a major part in promoting exports.
I welcome much of the Report but I regret the complacency which appears in parts of it and in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. Again, I ask him to look at the introduction of a commercial corporation to take over the rôle which the Government are trying to fill but which they are not trained or equipped to do.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I am grateful to hon. Members who have kept their speeches short and have given me an opportunity to make a brief contribution. Nothing concentrates one's thoughts so sharply and causes superfluous matter to be discarded so much as having to make a speech in perhaps half the time one originally hoped to have.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) and Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) when they ranged over some of the fundamental matters arising from the Report. This is probably not a time for revolution but for redeployment and redirection of the efforts


of the Government Departments concerned. We should not lightly forget that it is only five years since, with general approval, we asked the Diplomatic Service to reorganise itself and redirect its thinking and develop skills and techniques to an extent which it had not been its responsibility to develop before.
If, in the private sector, one makes a fundamental change of policy and a new request of one's staff, one does not lightly over-turn the course on which one has embarked, which might have considerable personal effect on just the people one has been encouraging to develop their talents in a certain direction.
We must decide what the Government services are trying to do. Are they trying to encourage more people to export, or is their first aim to secure more exports? It may be felt that this is a false contrapositioning and that the two are not exclusive. They are not exclusive, but in deciding the nature of promotional services it is important to know whether the principal aim is to find more people to export, probably for the first time, or whether to strengthen the efforts of those who are already engaged in exporting. In the present somewhat perilous state of the economy the emphasis should be not necessarily on more exporters, but, in the next two or three years, on more exports.
I attach great importance to a correct assessment of manpower requirements in overseas posts and to the consideration that when the assessment has been made its requirements should be met. Evidence was given to the Sub-Committee that the Diplomatic Service was still below the strength recommended in the Plowden Report. I looked up the Plowden Report of 1962–63 and paragraph 87 says:
One of the greatest needs is for a sufficient margin of manpower to cover the time which officers necessarily spend away from their desks. Time spent in travel, training, home leave and sick leave represents a severe drain on manpower resources in any overseas service.
Those who have not tried to handle the magic square of placing a limited number of staff in a multi-locational organisation cannot realise that the margin between efficiency and near chaos may be something like 2½ per cent. of total strength. If when the time comes

for a man to go for a training period there is a suitable replacement, then it is a simple operation. If retirement or promotion approaches, one can send a man sufficiently far in advance to take over well before the staff change is made so that nobody is conscious of what is going on. But if one gets into the situation of having to make an ad hoc, forced emergency appointment or the system gets out of balance, then there is a chain reaction all the way down the line involving perhaps four or five rushed appointments. Then the fall in inefficiency is very much greater than the mere deficiency in numbers.

Mr. Crosland: indicated assent.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I see that the President of the Board of Trade agrees with that remark.
I was concerned that there was an indication in the evidence from the Department that the build-up to the Plowden reserve figure of 10 per cent. was under present circumstances dependent on economies being made elsewhere. Reference was surprisingly made to the suppression of overseas posts. I have never accused the Government of excessive economy, but at present it would be a false economy to economise on this particular aspect of Government service.
One witness who gave evidence to the Sub-Committee used the word "float" in relation to the 10 per cent. In this connection, I cannot think of a more destructive expression than the word "float". It conjures up pictures of surplus staff hanging round waiting for something to do. The expression "the Plowden reserve" would be much more likely to win approval in higher places for the additional expenditure involved.
I think that I have time to deal with two of the points raised in evidence to the Sub-Committee. The first of them is closely related to the point that I have just made, and it is the complaint about over-frequent changes in posts and the fact that people do not remain long enough in one place.
Two possible answers occur to me. The first is to leave people longer in their posts. It may be that now that they are spending a greater proportion of their service careers on commercially-orientated activities, the need to move


them round quite so much is not as great. This might be given serious consideration, certainly as it applies to some locations.
The second suggestion which I would make is that possibly the natural evolution will be that, as people spend a greater proportion of their total career spans on commercial activities, as we have heard is happening, they will develop a greater expertise in commercial matters and be quicker at picking up the "feel" of a country when they go there, providing always that they are given the minimum overlap period which I discussed just now.
This is a comparatively new development. The evidence that we have had from people with first-hand experience is that it is evolving in an encouraging fashion. However, I do not see why it should not be possible quite deliberately for a greater element of the whole career span to be ear-marked for specific commercial activity.
My other point concerns the secondment of people between Government service and industry. My own view is that it will not prove to be possible. The people who are wanted for this work are those who are among the contenders in their own career paths. They are looking for the key promotions in their careers. It is asking a great deal of them to expect them to go for two or three years into Government service. They will be looking over their shoulders constantly to see what is happening in their firms.
I can only put forward one possible suggestion, and perhaps it is a little farfetched. It is perhaps that the more sophisticated services which have been referred to in the evidence might be undertaken by people appointed on a

consultancy basis to a geographical area for four or five years as a definite phase of a career which is orientated on the private sector. When a man had worked in a consultancy capacity in one location for such a period, he could then go back to his firm, produce the appropriate page of the Board of Trade Journal showing the export statistics of the country concerned, and say, "I was there for five years. There are the figures of the commodity in which I was working. Surely I am worth the export manager's position."

Finally, may I join in the plea for a national exhibition centre? The party opposite has a good record in that our exhibitions have been fairly successful. The Festival of Britain did a great deal for the spirit of Britain. The British Pavilion at Expo was an outstanding success. Perhaps the delay has been worthwhile if we use sufficient imagination when we finally come to do the job.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Sixth Report from the Estimates Committee in the last Session of Parliament relating to the Promotion of Exports and of the Departmental Observations thereon (Command Paper No. 3854).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Government's action regarding the Divorce Reform Bill and on the Divorce Reform Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Concannon.]

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 69.

Division No. 251.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael


Archer, Peter
Cant, R. B.
Ennals, David


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Coe, Denis
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fernyhough, E.


Awdry, Daniel
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Barnett, Joel
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dewar, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Booth, Albert
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Boyden, James
Dobson, Ray
Gregory, Arnold


Braine, Bernard
Driberg, Tom
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brooks, Edwin
Ellis, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Emery, Peter
Harper, Joseph




Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacDermot, Niall
Rees, Merlyn


Haseldine, Norman
Macdonald, A. H.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mackie, John
Roebuck, Roy


Hobden, Dennis
Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
Ryan, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Scott, Nicholas


Horner, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sheldon, Robert


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)



Mendelson, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howie, W.
Millan, Bruce
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hunt, John
Mollay, William
Silverman, Julius


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sinclair, Sir George


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Newens, Stan
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Norwood, Christopher
Tapsell, Peter


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oram, Albert E.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orbach, Maurice
Tinn, James


Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Varley, Eric G.


Kenyon, Clifford
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Palmer, Arthur
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncastsr)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitaker, Ben


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wiliams, Mrs. Shirey (Hitchin)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lipton, Marcus
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Winnick, David


Loughlin, Charles
Pentland, Norman



Luard, Evan
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lubbock, Eric
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Onslow, Cranley


Alldritt, Walter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn, J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Body, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Small, William




Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Tilney, John


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Waddington, David


Dean, Paul
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ward, Dame Irene


Doughty, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Weatherill, Bernard


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin
Worsley, Marcus


Farr, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wright, Esmond


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Monro, Hector
Sir Cyril Black and


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Mr. Marcus Kimball.

Orders of the Day — DIVORCE REFORM BILL (PROCEDURE)

10.9 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I beg to move,
That this House, having regard to the stated intention of the Leader of the House to order a Private Member's Bill, namely the Divorce Reform Bill, to be brought before the House for further consideration at 10 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, 12th June, thereby giving to that Bill preference and priority over all other current Private Members' Bills, despite his profession of Government neutrality towards the contents of the Bill, and his refusal to accept it as Government business or to accept any Government responsibility for it, declares that such action by the Government is in contravention of Standing Order No. 15, is unconstitutional, and constitutes a grave abuse of Parliamentary procedure by the Executive.
It will best assist the House if I confine myself to the contravention of Standing Order No. 15. I hope that I have a proper sense of modesty in moving this Motion, having regard to those who support it, who are right hon. and hon. Members with a far more responsible background than mine. The Standing Order provides for two kinds of business, and only two, in this House—Government business and Private Members' business. By putting this Motion on the Order Paper, the Government have admitted that there is a basis for this discussion.
I recognise the fairness and propriety of the Government's decision in setting it down ahead of the Bill. This is a very unusual and extraordinary thing—not in any deplorable way: but it shows unusual honesty on the part of any Government. They have said, "We are neutral about this Bill. There is the Bill and there is a Motion put forward by five Privy Councillors and another hon. Member saying that the Bill should have much more consideration than it has had before."
This is not a wrecking Motion. I emphasise that. It raises a question of great importance: what is the status of Private Members' Bills when the Government have not made up their minds whether they support them or not? We have had a Motion from the Prime Minister which would enable the House to sit for one week, two weeks or a month at one time. Many people do not realise that. This Motion will not necessarily

stop the House from sitting at Four o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot debate the Motion which has just been passed.

Sir L. Heald: I was not debating it but merely stating the consequences of Mr. Speaker's decision. We are, therefore, considering a very grave matter. The House is now empowered to continue to discuss the Bill for the next 48 hours. Where does that place the House?
We must consider the consequences. The Bill is being given preference in consideration over 25 Private Members' Bills which are already down for consideration tomorrow. What is the justification for this? It could be that the Government have decided that although this is a Private Members' Bill, it is of such interest, importance and benefit to the nation that it should be given this special privilege. Have the Government so decided?
We then come to a small but interesting point which I know has been considered by many authorities in the House. If hon. Members look at the next item on the Order Paper, they will see that, at the side of the heading "3. Divorce Reform Bill" is a curious thing called an asterisk. That is believed to indicate that it is Government business. I have tried to ascertain the origin of the asterisk, but it is not possible to find the answer. It is like so many other excellent things in this House. It has been used in the past for such a long time that, like some hon. Members, nobody knows how they ever got here.
However, it does not have any sanction and one of the purposes of my Motion is to find out what it means. It is one of those convenient things of the moment which enable people to say that they are authoritative if it suits them, while, if it does not suit them, they can say that they do not mean a thing. That is the position of the asterisk and my Motion is, therefore, designed to discover the atmosphere, from the Government's point of view, as we come to discuss the Bill.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker—I am not sure that you will, but, notionally, you will—that I have on more than one occasion asked the Leader of the House


to state the attitude of the Government towards the Bill. He has replied that it is an attitude of definite neutrality. However, the fact of putting an asterisk to the Bill has been understood, as it has for nearly a hundred years, to indicate that it is Government business. What is Government business? If I am told later in this debate that Government business means that the Government accept responsibility for the Bill, I would be perfectly prepared to withdraw my Motion, for then one would have an entirely different situation.
At present if there is an organisation, a great personality, somebody of great importance in the country who thinks that Amendments should be made to the Bill and if he goes to the Prime Minister and says, "I should like to discuss the possibility of amending the Bill", he will be told—I believe that he has been told—"This is nothing to do with the Government. You must see the sponsors of the Bill." Is that a really satisfactory situation in relation to a great moral and social subject of this kind?
This is the first moment that this star has appeared by the title. Divorce Reform Bill. Until now it has been omitted. I am fortified by a rather splendid precedent on February 28th 1888, which I shall not quote in detail because I assume, as we always do, Mr. Speaker, that all these matters are within your memory. This matter was raised by Lord Randolph Churchill. He raised exactly the same point as I am raising. He asked whether the Government were accepting responsibility for the Bill, or not? If not, then it should not be proceeded with. If we look at Standing Order No. 15 we find that only two kinds of business can be considered by this House. Standing Order No. 15 says:
The orders of the day shall be disposed of in the order in which they stand upon the paper, the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers of arranging…
"arranging" is a very good word for Her Majesty's Ministers—
government business whether orders of the day or notices of motions in such order as they may think fit".
It was under that rule that last night, to their great credit, the Government put this Motion on the Order Paper.
There are only two kinds of business, Government business and private Members' business. If this were still private Members' business it would be with the other 25 Private Members' Bills tomorrow which, as we understand, are now intended to be blotted out. We know that there is one that the Government does not want. Therefore, it will be convenient to them if the sitting should go on as it could tomorrow so as to blot out that particular Bill.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recollect as I do that in 1938 a Conservative Government set a very respectable precedent by giving Government time to enable A. P. Herbert's Bill, as it was popularly known, to complete its full stages in Parliament?

Sir L. Heald: I do recollect 1938, as the hon. Lady obviously does.
Returning to Standing Order No. 15, there are these two alternatives, Government business and private Members' business and no third kind of business—hermaphrodite, bastard, whatever we like to call it—but that is what this Government, and I agree previous Governments, have allowed to exist. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am not talking about party political matters. I know that one or two hon. Members opposite with whom I have been associated recently in some nefarious operations in this House, do not regard this sort of thing as a party political matter.
This is a House of Commons matter—a matter in which the country is very much interested.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Get on with it.

Sir L. Heald: Very well, we shall get on with it. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons are being twisted to get the Government out of difficulty. I shall not speak at great length. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Someone may say that is a good thing and it may be good that we should not speak at great length. I speak, I hope, with reasonable modesty in this matter as the first sponsor of a Motion which has, I venture to think, rather formidable support. I speak with modesty because I have the support of people who have held great positions of responsibility in the House of Commons. They, I believe, will deal with


other aspects of this matter. I am concerned with the procedural aspect. If the Leader of the House will get up at a later stage of the debate and tell us one or two things, I should be prepared, for my part—as far as I can control matters—to withdraw the Motion.
The first thing would be for the right hon. Gentleman to agree that the present situation, under which the Government can use Private Members' Bills as a convenient way of not opposing ideas and movements of which they may disapprove but which, they think, may affect the voting results at the next election, should be stopped. We should know now and for the future whether the Government really support this kind of Bill.
When I say that, hon. Members should remember the Abortion Bill. The Government abdicated their responsibility. They said that it would be all right. I, in a very modest way, and others pointed out that Clause 1 of the Abortion Bill would result in appalling consequences. It has done so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot on this Motion debate the merits of the Abortion Bill.

Sir L. Heald: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not think that anybody wishes to debate it. Most people would regard it as fairly obvious in view of the results which it has had. That was the Abortion Bill.
There have been other Bills—and Mr. Speaker will not want me to refer to them—[Interruption.]—on which the same thing has happened. I shall leave the other aspects—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is difficult when—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to address the House against a background of conversation.

Sir L. Heald: As I have said, this is not a filibustering speech. It is a speech introducing a Motion of great importance. I shall leave other aspects of the matter to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I earnestly ask the House to realise that this evening we are engaged in a very important discussion. I only remind the House that the power of the Government to interfere with private Members' business is a very recent thing. One hundred

years ago, the difficulty was—[Interruption.] Of course, hon. Members opposite have never read the history. One hundred years ago, private Members had almost complete control of the business of the House. Machinery had to be introduced to allow the Government to have any control of business. It was so introduced. When it was introduced, very little was left in doubt. Definite rules were laid down. One of those was the principle, to which I have already referred, of Standing Order No. 15. The Government can, if they think right and so desire, choose particular items and say that they are public Government business. That they have done in this case. The fact that they have done it means that this is a subject which, even in their view, is one of major importance. I sincerely hope that the House will consider it in that way tonight.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said that this was a matter which concerned the whole House of Commons. I entirely agree with that view. How the House divides and allocates its time and how the Government use their authority in this respect are important questions. I do not think that anyone will dissent from that statement. Moreover, I imagine that no one can dissent from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement at the beginning of his speech that the Government have shown considerable magnanimity in being prepared to accept and put down this Motion at this stage in our proceedings. I hope that the magnanimity which the Government have shown in that respect will meet with some response from hon. and right hon. Members opposite. The Government are entitled to it, because they have recognised, by accepting that this debate should take place now, that the House itself should decide the question. Therefore, I hope that, when we proceed later, assuming that the Motion is rejected, hon. Members will take that into account. I think that the Government are perfectly entitled to make that appeal.
However, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded from that point to say that his Motion is not a wrecking Motion, one could not accept


that. In Parliamentary terms, it must, I think, be regarded as a wrecking Motion. It could hardly be stated in stronger terms. It says that what the Government are doing is "unconstitutional", that it is a "grave abuse of Parliamentary procedure". If such a Motion were to be carried at this stage of our proceedings, it would be a wrecking Resolution. I do not think that anyone should discuss or vote upon the matter in any other sense. It would be hypocritical for any hon. Member to press the matter without acknowledging that it is in Parliamentary terms a wrecking proposal, that is, a proposal designed to wreck the Bill which it is proposed later to discuss.

Sir Douglas Glover: Rubbish.

Mr. Foot: The comment is made that that is rubbish. I ask the House to look at the terms of the Motion. If such a Motion were carried, it would, surely, be improper for the House afterwards to proceed to discuss a matter which it had said was being discussed in an unconstitutional manner.

Mr. Angus Maude: But, surely, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it might still be right for the House to decide that a Bill had been brought forward on the Order Paper in the wrong order, in an improper way, but still consider that the Bill might be right in substance. The fact that the Bill is a good Bill does not mean that anything can be done with Parliamentary procedure to get it through.

Mr. Foot: I understand that point exactly. But I am saying that, if this Motion were carried, it would in its effect be wrecking in the Parliamentary manner that we know when wrecking Amendments or Motions are moved. No one can dispute that, and I think that that is a fair acknowledgment for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to make; it would be hypocritical to pretend otherwise. If the Motion were carried, it would be improper for the House to proceed later with the debate. Therefore, it is a wrecking Motion in that sense.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman sets himself up on these occasions as the conscience of the House. Is he really saying that, even though we are

going contrary to all our Standing Orders and all our Sessional Orders, just because we want to debate a particular Bill though we are out of order we should debate it? If that is what he is advocating, anarchy looms very close to the House.

Mr. Foot: I am not setting myself up as the conscience of the House or as any greater authority than any other hon. Member has. I am trying to present an argument, and this part of what I am saying is based on the fact—and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now agrees with me, even if other honourable but less learned Gentlemen do not—that it is a wrecking Motion if the House votes on the matter and votes in that sense.

Mr. Peter Mahon: If my hon. Friend deems this to be a wrecking Motion why, if it is a Private Member's Bill, are the Government taking this action at all?

Mr. Foot: That is a separate part of the argument, to which I am coming in a moment. I cannot put all the arguments I wish to present in one sentence. I was dealing with the claim of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who said that it was not a wrecking Motion. I think that on consideration he takes a different view.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Foot: I do not see how anybody can reach a different conclusion. Those hon. Members who may take a different view on this aspect of the matter are deceiving themselves, even if they do not deceive other hon. Members.
The main burden of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is that there are only two forms of business—Government business and Private Members' business, and that there cannot be any blurring of the distinction between the two. Whatever the Standing Orders may say, and I do not think that they say that, that has not been a principle which has previously been accepted in the House. It was not accepted in the case of a previous Divorce Bill, which is extremely apposite to this matter. In that case it was not considered by a Conservative Government of the 1930s


that there was only Government business or private business. They blurred the distinctions for a very important reason.

An Hon. Member: Why?

Mr. Foot: I shall come to the reasons why they should have reached this conclusion. But I am first pointing out that it is not the case that the present Government have suddenly decided to blur the distinction between Government and private Members' business. This has been done on previous occasions. It was done in the case of the Divorce Bill introduced by Mr. A. P. Herbert and, I understand, in the more recent case of a Gaming Act of 1963, when a Conservative Government also blurred the distinction between Government time and private Members' time, in my belief for a very good reason.
Why is it that Governments at certain stages in our Parliamentary procedure decide that it is necessary to say, "We have not made up our minds as a Government to support this Measure, but we think that it is right that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of deciding"? These are two different things, and in previous cases Governments have found this to be a convenient distinction.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: rose—

Mr. Foot: I have given way several times already.
It is a very reasonable conclusion for previous Governments to have come to and a reasonable conclusion for the present Government to have come to. All of us know that there is a whole variety of subjects, such as divorce and matters that touch on religious opinion perhaps, that are not directly concerned with party political battles, and that if we were to say that such Measures were to be presented to the House only if a Government and Cabinet could be unanimous about them they would never have the opportunity to be discussed by the House at all.
It would be a grave infringement of our Parliamentary possibilities and opportunities if it were to be said that the only kind of major Measures which are able to be presented to the House of Commons are those upon which the

Cabinet must reach unanimous agreement and can uphold collective responsibility. If it were to be the case, then a whole series of major reforms would have been held up, not merely the kind of major reforms of this social character that have been brought forward in the lifetime of this Government, but also Measures of a social character brought forward in the history of previous Governments.
All of us know that, for example, in matters of divorce, the Roman Catholic Church holds very strong views, and sticks steadfastly to those views. Are we to say therefore that measures of that character should not be brought forward unless the Cabinet was cleared of its Roman Catholic members? That is the claim if we say that this kind of measure must be made into a Government Measure.

Sir D. Glover: Nonsense.

Mr. Foot: If this principle were to be operated, that all Measures of a major character must command the unanimous approval of the Cabinet before they could be presented and before time was provided for them, it would be a potent cause of breeding intolerance in our public life, because it would mean that many people who hold strongly to their religious convictions in the Cabinet would have to be forced out of the Cabinet on that account. These are the consequences of the argument presented by hon. Members.
This is why I believe that this matter is one of major importance for the House. It is not a question merely of the Government saying that this Bill has priority over other Measures, although they are perfectly entitled to do so; it is not that the Government are saying that all the other Private Members' Measures will have to be dropped if this proposal to debate this subject is accepted. The Government have given fairly clear undertakings on this, that they will do everything they can to protect the other Private Members' Bills affected tomorrow—that is if the time is taken up so much in the debate that those Measures have to fall. That is not necessary. There is plenty of time available for proper discussion of this question and of the other matters.
If that were to be the decision of this House by supporting this Motion, and


the House were to be denied the opportunity now to decide on the question of divorce reform, it would bring Parliament into utter contempt. This is not a subject which has been suddenly brought in, in a rushed debate. This is a matter that has been debated in the country for years, generations. Many of us remember the debates in 1950 and 1951 when the present Minister of State at the Welsh Office introduced her Bill. Many of us remember the establishment of a Royal Commission which examined the matter with the utmost care. Many of us remember the detailed debates which took place on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). There is hardly a single social subject that has been examined in greater detail by commissions, bodies, outside this House and by this House, on a whole series of occasions. No one can say that this is a Measure that is being rushed through.
The Government are not abandoning their neutrality. All that they are saying and it is a very common-sense thing, is that the House has a right to make up its mind on this subject and they are going a little further, and saying that the House has a duty to make up its mind. I understand perfectly hon. Members who oppose this divorce Bill and wish to present arguments against it and fight it. They are perfectly within their rights. But I do not think that they are in their rights to complain that the Government are providing the opportunity for the elected representatives of the people to decide on this question. What would be a denial of the rights of the House of Commons as well as what many of us believe the elementary individual and human rights of tens of thousands of people who have been waiting in agony and grievance for years—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift into the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Foot: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. What would be a denial of the proper procedures of the House is if, instead of proceeding, as I believe the whole country expects us to do, to settle this question now, with each of us saying what conclusion we have reached, by some Parliamentary device we were to be prevented from making that choice.

It would be an abuse of Parliament and I hope that the House will reject the Motion.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is no doubt right in saying that, if the Motion were carried, the likelihood of the Bill reaching the Statute Book would be considerably diminished but that does not justify describing the Motion in any ordinary acceptance of the term as a "wrecking" Motion, for it is a Motion which has a substantive purpose and importance in its own right.
The hon. Gentleman's argument that any hon. Member who is in favour of the Bill ought, in order to get the Bill, to jump the question which the Motion poses and automatically vote against the Motion is as good as to say that if we decide on a course of action it does not matter about the procedures of the House, about the proprieties, about the related powers of Government and backbenchers, but that we should go straight to our purpose. I do not think that approach has been characteristic of the contributions which the hon. Gentleman has made in this House. I believe that we have a duty as well as a right to consider the very substantial point which is posed by the Motion.
The question of precedent has already been touched upon and I dare say it will feature largely before the debate concludes. Nevertheless, I do not think that precedent is the heart of the matter or that we can decide the question the Motion poses by looking at precedent. You, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair of this House, are bound by the rules of the House; and in the interpretation of the rules you are bound by the precedents. Once you have satisfied yourself, on the best consideration and advice you can take, that precedent lies one way, you, as Speaker, have no alternative before you but to follow precedent.
But the House, in considering this Motion, is in no way bound by precedent. Even if it were shown—and I do not know what will emerge—that there were more or less precedents for what the Government are attempting to do, it would nevertheless be valuable and right for us to consider whether those precedents ought any longer to be valid.


The House is master of its own procedure and can at any time decide that the manner in which its business has been conducted hitherto is defective or capable of being improved and ought to be improved. So, although no doubt the question of precedent will feature in the debate, it is not the central matter.
The central matter is, precedent or no precedent, the abuse of power. Standing Order No. 15 gives the Government, because they are the Government, the right to marshal the Order Paper, the right to determine on most Parliamentary days what business shall be taken and in what order. The House accords that right to the Government for the sake of the public business, in order that the Queen's business may be carried on. Therefore, the House gives the Government the power to decide what business shall be taken and to exclude other business.
The Government in this House, under our forms of order and procedure, have very great powers indeed which, in other circumstances, could be used quite tyrannically. But we accord them these powers and we use them with the degree of understanding with which we are all familiar because we recognise that in the end the Government must be carried on; that those Measures which are necessary—necessary not in the opinion of this or that hon. Member but in the opinion of the Government—must be brought before the House at the time when the Government think they should be and must be debated and, if possible, decided by the House at the option of the Government.
But these are matters where the Government on their own responsibility come forward and say, "This is necessary in the public interest". They take responsibility when they exercise the power; but the moment they use that power in connection with a Measure of which they do not assert on their responsibility that it is public business, that it is necessary for the carrying on of the Government, then we set up a situation of power without responsibility—the well-known and trite metaphor from which I will not quote, but which will be in the mind of hon. Members.
When the Government in this House are properly exercising the right which Standing Order No. 15 gives them, they take responsibility for every element in

the Measure or the business to which that procedure is applied and for its consequences. If a Measure is passed on the Government's responsibility, then we know afterwards whom to blame for the outcome.
They do not exercise the power of Standing Order No. 15 without sanction. The sanction is that which attends on the exercise of all power in a democracy—that of being criticised and called to account. Consequently on Government business, all points, however small, however detailed—

Mr. Daniel Awdry: Surely it is Parliament that ought to be blamed, not the Government, since it is Parliament that passes legislation, not the Government.

Mr. Powell: But my hon. Friend must consider the circumstances in which Parliament passes legislation. If a Bill goes through as a Private Member's Bill, no member of the public is entitled to blame the Government, but if a Bill goes through because, and only because, the Government have used their power to secure its passage procedurally—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help this interesting debate at all. Mr. Powell.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: rose—

Mr. Powell: Perhaps I could complete my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). Perhaps I went a little too far when I said—
[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I assure hon. Members that noise does not help the case that they wish to support. Mr. Powell.

Mr. Powell: The argument is so strong that it is not necessary to claim that the legislation would pass only because the Government have used their power under Standing Order No. 15. It is only necessary to claim—and this no hon. Member of the House can deny—that the passage has been greatly facilitated [Hon. Members: No.] and may well have depended upon the interposition of the Government's powers.
In those circumstances, the public ought to be able to say—and it is the meaning of responsible Government that the public ought to be able to say—"We know where the blame lies. This Measure is in effect because of action taken by the Government." But the Government slip out from under that responsibility. They do not come to the Dispatch Box and justify one clause after another in the Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman does not justify his policy—
[Interruption.]

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, I appeal to the House to keep order. Mr. Powell

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Surely the difference here is that there will be no Whips on. How can my right hon. Friend claim that the Government facilitate the passage of the Bill when they do not put the Whips on? I can see the force of the argument when hon. Members are whipped in support. That is a different matter. But surely he, with his constitutional knowledge, will agree that Parliament is sovereign in the passage of legislation.

Mr. Powell: I do not believe that any hon. Member here doubts why we are having this debate and why we will sit tonight. It is because the Government have done for this Bill what is not normally done for a Private Member's Bill. The probable effect, and in many cases the intended effect, of that being done is to secure its passage.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Powell: Therefore I repeat that the Government are here exercising power without responsibility. They are securing or promoting a legislative result without submitting themselves to the normal responsibility for what they bring about by the use of their power in this House. In short, this procedure is an abuse, whether covered by precedent or not, of the principle and philosophy underlying Standing Order No. 15.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a democrat, agree that it is much better that important issues are debated fully and decided by Parliament than debated in speeches outside Parliament?

Mr. Powell: They can, with advantage, be debated in both ways.
I was about to deal with the second major point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I join with the hon. Gentleman in his concern that the procedures and potentialities of this House should not in any way be narrowed. The hon. Gentleman said that certain matters require to be maturely deliberated on and perhaps decided in this House, even though they are not made the subject of Government policy and are not covered by the doctrine of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. Yes, indeed, I agree with him. But we have procedures for doing that. The opinion of the House can be tested and debates can be secured by the Motion procedure. If we wish to ascertain the opinion of this House, or of the country, on any matter, there is a whole range of procedures by which debate can be secured in this House. But those procedures do not involve the Government using the power and privilege which are given to them to carry through public business upon which the Cabinet has collectively decided, as a mantle for covering matters where there is no such responsibility and no such Government being done tonight, in any way be recognising the impropriety of what is being done tonight, in any way by impoverishing the ability of this House to debate, at whatever length, any subject we wish to have before us.
Whatever the outcome of this debate, I do not believe that this matter can now be left here. I do not believe that the House can remain satisfied with a situation in which the Government can interpose their special powers to lift one Measure out of many from the general run of private Members' Measures covered by rules which the House itself has approved and give it the special treatment which is justified only where the Government are prepared to say, "This, on our responsibility, is in the public interest".
Whatever we decide to do about this Motion tonight, I believe that the House


ought to remit to the committees which consider its procedure the real difficulty, and I submit the real abuse, which is being exposed by the debate on this Motion. My right hon. and learned Friend by putting this Motion before the House at this point, and the Government by enabling the debate on this Motion to take place at this point, have performed a real service to the future procedure of the House of Commons.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: It is a matter of some surprise to me, except when my own passions are aroused, that when the passions of individual Members are aroused they put points without considering the alternatives to the points which they advocate.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) accused the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) of a degree of exaggeration in that he said that this was a wrecking Motion when it was not a wrecking Motion. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was making a fair point. I think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale probably was exaggerating.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, was, I think, greatly exaggerating in the remainder of his speech the point originally made by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and the reason is simple. It can be put in one question: what procedure is available other than the one the Government have adopted? It seems to me that in many ways the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey had a perfectly good point, but perhaps because of his reasons for introducing the Motion in the first place, his desire to oppose the Bill as a whole—I put it no higher than that; I do not know his motives—he has applied a perfectly good point in the wrong way. It seems to me that it is perfectly valid to say that the Government should not have to adopt a procedure of this kind to see that the will of the House of Commons is obeyed.

Sir D. Glover: Will it reach such a conclusion?

Mr. English: We are to have a vote, and we shall soon find out.
What is the position with Private Members' Bills? We agree, as a House of

Commons, upon the amount of time available for Private Members' Bills, and then we have a lottery to determine how the law should be altered. If the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) really believes that this is the best procedure that man could devise for altering—

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I am fortunate enough to be called to speak, I shall try to reduce the temperature of the debate. I do not think that we are in anything like the trouble referred to by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), and indeed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Powell). We have a number of procedures which we could have adopted and not got ourselves completely out of order as we have tonight. I do not think that we need get as excited as we are doing.

Mr. English: We are by no means out of order. We are in the situation of a somewhat unusual precedent in that this Motion is being discussed at all. But since it is being discussed, and since there is a valid point involved—a point which has been made in three different ways already—let us make clear what the point is. The point is that this Motion criticises the Government, and it does not matter in this context whether it happens to be a Labour or a Conservative Government because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has already pointed out, there are precedents in both cases. This Motion criticises the Government for using their power over the timetable of the House to put a particular Bill in an order of precedence to which it otherwise would not be entitled. But why would it not be entitled to it?
The hon. Member for Ormskirk interrupted me at a point when I was saying that Private Members' Bills in this House are a lottery. It is wrong, in my view—other hon. Members may or may not agree—that the legislation of this country should be the subject of a simple lottery system—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole procedure governing Private Members' Bills cannot be discussed on this specific Motion.

Mr. English: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you will allow me to make the point that, the order of precedence having originally been decided by a lottery, then by virtue of a Standing Order which this House has passed, if a Bill is opposed for a sufficiently long time it automatically slips down in the order of precedence. What this means in effect is that however many Members approve of a Bill, if it happens to be controversial, it will automatically slip down in the order of precedence within private Members' time. This means that one should pass legislation in Private Members' time only if nobody disagrees with it.
We should realise that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey has raised a very good point. But it is totally unfair of the right hon. and learned Member and of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West if they then blame the Government for endeavouring to put the matter right in the belief that a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to have the matter discussed because those hon. Members believe that many people whom they represent wish to have it discussed. I am not entering into the merits of this Bill, but it seems to me that if hon. Members object to the system whereby time has been given to this Bill, it is not their duty merely to suggest that the Government are wrong in giving time on behalf of the country and of the House, but to suggest that the House should have a better system for determining how Bills of this controversial nature should come before it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I saw three hon. Members trying to intervene at that moment. Mr. John Hall.

Mr. John Hall: Would not the result which the hon. Gentleman seeks be achieved if the Government were prepared to adopt as their own business a Private Member's Bill which they favoured?

Mr. English: It seems to me that the cure is worse than the disease complained of. I do not think I am exaggerating

the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey when I say that he suggested that because a tiny star appears against the third item on the Order Paper, the Government have therefore gone beyond their own policy of neutrality in order to approve of a Bill. The hon. Member is suggesting that the Government should go beyond that point. He cannot have both. His intervention and the original point of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey cannot both be valid. If it is suggested that, instead of this procedure, the Government should adopt the Bill as their own business and policy, what becomes of the original point?
My point is that it is totally wrong for hon. Members to suggest that the Government are wrong in trying to rescue the House from a dilemma in which it is placed by its own procedures. What we should consider is whether there there should be a simple way in which the House can declare that it, as a whole—back benchers and Front Benchers, as private Members—wishes to give precedence to subjects which have precedence in the minds of the country. If that could be so, the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would fall to the ground. But since that is not so, what other procedure is available than the one adopted by the Government and which is objected to tonight?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak and that brief speeches will help.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) rather ruined his argument, because he said that he did not like the way in which Standing Order No. 5 works, under which Private Members' Bills are chosen by Ballot. But this is the Standing Order under which we work, and it is in the light of that that we must consider the procedure adopted tonight. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that this raises a very important Parliamentary point. This is not a wrecking Motion, because, if it were carried, the Bill would take its


proper place in the business tomorrow and would be third, I think, in the list of Bills selected. By adopting this course, the Government have lifted it out of the priority which it had under Standing Order No. 5 and treated it as if it were Government business.
I agree that there have been precedents. Eskine May says:
…the Government is given a control over the time of the House which is very far-reaching…This control is the result of a process, extending over the last century, whereby an ever-increasing proportion of the time of the session has been appropriated to the Government.
I am interested, not because of the merits of the Bill, but because I believe that, in recent Sessions, the Government have used methods to take more of Private Members' Time for those Private Members' Bills which they prefer.
The Leader of the House said at Question Time that this is not the first time, but there is this difference. What the Government have been doing in recent Sessions is to push through selected Private Members' Bills by using the suspension rule late at night. That has not been done previously. A. P. Herbert's Bill and the Gaming Bill which was discussed in 1963 were not pushed through late at night. The nearest analogy to the procedure which the Government are adopting is the one given by the Leader of the House at Question Time—the Divorce (Scotland) Bill. I looked up the debate. The present Secretary of State for Scotland objected when the then Leader of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) put the Divorce (Scotland) Bill at the end of the day's business so that it could be taken then.
The difference between the Divorce (Scotland) Bill and this Divorce Bill is, first, that that was a Bill which was being pressed by the Lord Advocate, as the present Secretary of State for Scotland said, and it was, to that extent, therefore a Government-sponsored Bill, although it was introduced by Mr. Hendry. Secondly, it was a Bill upon which there were going to be no Divisions at all; there were no Divisions; it went through within an hour and half after 10 o'clock on 21st July, 1964.
Thirdly, and what is rather more important, the excuse which my right hon.

and learned Friend the Member for Wirral gave for using that procedure for that Bill was that that was a Scottish day: there were Scottish Estimates all day, and he thought it would be convenient for the Scotsmen to go on to deal with a Scottish Bill, when the alternative would have been that Scotsmen would have had to sit on a Friday, and Scotsmen are disinclined to sit on Fridays. Therefore, he chose that course. I am not defending my absent right hon. and learned Friend. I am explaining to the House the difference between the procedure adopted on that Bill and the procedure adopted on this Bill—and, indeed, on the Abortion Bill last Session.
It is quite wrong, in my view, that Bills on which there are quite substantial minority views should be pushed through the House late at night. Quite frankly, I think the House is getting worse and worse in this matter of all-night Sittings. It is quite wrong, and I believe that we ought to adopt other methods for dealing with contentious legislation than that of pushing it through late at night.
What other procedure is available to the Government? That was the question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. Surely, if this Bill is important, if the Government wish to have it, so that they afford time for it, without taking responsibility for it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was saying, they can devote a Parliamentary day—a proper Parliamentary day, not a Parliamentary night—for the discussion of it. I would have no objection. I personally think that there is great merit in parts of the Bill. There is one Clause to which I am very sure we ought—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Father of the House must not drift into discussing the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Turton: I am sorry. I was putting that as an aside, Mr. Speaker.
There is nothing to stop the Government from giving proper time to the House for discussion of the Bill, and in that case it would not be necessary for them to use the procedure they are using tonight.
Whatever conclusion is come to on this Motion, I would ask the House to give thought to this problem of what we do


when we want to get a Bill considered when there are is a substantial minority in opposition to it. We have not found the right answer. We cannot draft legislation well in the early hours of the morning, and we ought to find a way different from this.
I personally believe, unlike the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, that Standing Orders No. 5 and No. 15 are correct. I believe that they are being twisted to a certain extent by the procedure which has been adopted tonight and which, I admit, has been adopted on rare occasions in the past. The House should beware of making this a regular practice.

Mr. English: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Standing Orders of that character apply an automatic procedure, irrespective of the circumstances, irrespective of the occasion, irrespective of the will of the House or of the country, to every Bill once it has gone into the lottery? Is it not better that the will of the House should prevail?

Mr. Turton: The will of the House prevails on every Bill that is introduced. But, as all hon. Members are potential legislators, it is difficult for even the hon. Member for Nottingham, West to judge whether one potential legislator is better than another. From very long Parliamentary practice we have adopted the system of the Ballot, and by and large it works very well. I speak with some feeling. When I came to the House as a new Member 40 years ago I drew first place in the Ballot and I made my maiden speech on that occasion—and I have always thought that there is a lot to be said for Standing Order No. 5.
Whatever view one takes of this situation—whether the Government have acted unconstitutionally or irregularly or not—the House should beware of this habit of thrusting through contentious Bills late at night. It does not make for good legislation and it is an abuse of the Rules of the House.

11.22 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Perhaps I should intervene at this stage, although I am not seeking to wind up the debate. I have found the debate already interesting and stimulat-

ing. The House is always at its best on a subject such as this when the issues cut across parties and the Measure—although I must not be involved in it—is supported on all sides of the House and opposed on all sides of the House. Inevitably, on procedure Motions the House produces some extremely interesting speeches. I pay tribute to the speeches which have been made, and to the manner in which they have been made—and to the way in which the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) moved the Motion.
The Motion, which he read carefully and in detail, reveals a measure of partisanship—but not in a party sense; but the tone of his speech, I am glad to say, was rather different. I also thank him for giving me notice privately of the way in which he would approach the subject. I will follow the pattern set by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others. It is also right, Mr. Speaker, to heed your appeal for brevity and for an effort to put arguments concisely. I am grateful, too, for the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member on the evidence of the Government's neutrality and for the fact that he confined his speech to the issues of principle involved.
The posture adopted tonight is not a new posture of any Government to take. My hon. Friend the Member of Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) explained that in an effective speech. That view was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member of Nottingham, West (Mr. English). The Father of the House has admitted that there are precedents, and he has admitted that previous Administrations used Standing Orders Nos. 5 and 15. On the other hand, the right hon. Member of Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) argued that we were not necessarily confined to following precedent. But I stress that it is not a new posture of any Government to take.
I suggest that the most comparable and recent case was that mentioned by the right hon. Member of Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1964. Whether or not the debate then was short, the same principle applied. The then Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), has signed this Motion which is somewhat remarkable. I respect his views,


and I have great admiration for him. But he enabled that Measure to pass through Parliament and, whatever one may say about the time involved, the principle is the same.
I am not referring to isolated cases. I have with me a long list of similar cases. Hon. Members may refer to other cases during the discussion. During the past 20 years or so, about five Measures a year have, in this context, been given special help by the Government of the day to get the Royal Assent.
This point is not engaging the attention of some hon. Members, who are questioning whether social Measures of this importance should be handled by Governments rather than by private hon. Members. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey made this point, and I thought that the Father of the House sought to emphasise it.
I take the view which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale expressed in his inimitable way; that in certain circumstances the Government are right—indeed, they have a duty—to enable the House to make up its mind on important matters which affect the community, which are not of a party kind, which are moral in nature, which may be of a religious kind, and on which opinion is divided not only in the House but in the country generally. It is right that the Government of the day should enable the House to reach a decision and that the Government should exercise neutrality, as we have done in this case.

An Hon. Member: Nonsense.

Mr. Peart: Merely to shout "nonsense" is no argument. I trust that the hon. Member who shouted it will make a contribution to the debate.

Dame Irene Ward: I did not say "nonsense".

Mr. Peart: I was not referring to the hon. Lady but to one of her hon. Friends.

Mr. James Ramsden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am breaking the triangle. Mr. Peart.

Mr. Peart: I am explaining that it is right for any Government—it has been done by Conservative Administrations—to give the House an opportunity to

come to a decision on an issue of this kind. As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) aptly pointed out in an intervention, the Whips will not be on when we come to the Bill, and that is how it should be.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in the past this procedure has been adopted by Conservative Governments when matters of great controversy have been raised and at the expense of a whole day of other private hon. Members' Bills which lie ahead of this Bill on the Order Paper?

Mr. Peart: Yes, and if the hon. Gentleman reads his Parliamentary history he will find that what I have said has happened.

Mr. Goodhew: When?

Mr. Peart: Reference was made to a previous divorce Measure in the 'thirties and I have given the example of the Divorce (Scotland) Act, in respect of which the then Leader of the House made an announcement to the House, as I did in this case, at business question time.
Even the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West admitted that there were precedents, although he argued, cogently from his point of view, that we shoud not be bound by precedent. I am merely saying that the principle has been established. There is no doubt about that. I have looked into this matter extremely carefully. [Interruption.] I assure the House that the principle has been established. I believe it to be a good principle. It is that on a major matter of this kind it is right for the Government to enable the House to come to a decision. Then it will be for the supporters and the opponents of the Bill to state their cases and have the argument. I think the time had come in this case for us to make a decision and I think we made the right one.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I can appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulty, but I am more interested in what a Labour Government has done than what Conservative Governments have done. Could my right hon. Friend tell us on how many occasions he has followed the procedure we are now following and which subjects were the basis for the allocation of time?

Mr. Peart: I have given examples. I say that this is the right procedure whatever Government there is; I am not arguing a party case. The debate has not been conducted on the basis of whether we have a Labour or a Conservative Government; the principle has been accepted by Governments of different complexions. I am arguing that time should be given for the House itself—not the Government—to make up its mind on an issue of the importance of that which possibly we shall debate later tonight. I think this is right.

Mr. John Hall: rose—

Mr. Peart: Mr. Speaker has appealed to hon. Members to remember that many wish to speak. I hope that if the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) catches Mr. Speaker's eye he will make his speech.
It is the Government's view that in a number of social fields, including divorce, the Government as a Government should remain neutral, but the House should be entitled to come to a decision. Particularly in the case of an important issue like the present one, which has been long delayed, and in the light of the concern inside and outside this House, it is not only right but necessary to assist the House in coming to a decision one way or the other. This Government, like other Governments, believe that divorce is such a case. I believe this is right, but if the House wishes I am prepared to consider sympathetically that the general grant of Government time for Private Members' Bills should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. There may be argument about this, but I believe I am right to respond to a very serious point put by the mover of the Motion and also by the Father of the House. I will look into this because I think it important.
Another point which has been touched on is whether enough consideration has been given to possible Amendments to the Divorce Reform Bill. Of course, a further opportunity lies ahead in the present Sitting, and there will no doubt be other matters debated in another place. I cannot elaborate on that. I have no doubt that those concerned with the Bill might argue that the Bill now before the House is the result of changes we

made to a previous Bill, and that therefore the propositions which they are making are the result of previous deliberations by the House.
May I now insert a small procedural point which I know will interest the mover of the Motion? This concerns putting an asterisk to the title of a Bill. The decision to use an asterisk was made by the authorities of the House. This has gone back over a long period. It is not easy to find the specific time when the use of an asterisk began, but it has existed for many years. The House knows that the Order Paper shows by the use of an asterisk which are the Orders of the Day. We are asked, if the Government are neutral on the Divorce Reform Bill, why was the asterisk used? That is a fair question. The view of the House authorities is that facilitated Private Members' Bills are best dealt with in that way. This has been the practice, and it is not unusual. This is not to say that the Government agree with the Bill, as I said. It is merely that time will be provided so that the House can come to a decision. Indeed, the Government also gave this Motion priority. I am glad that reference has been made to the magnanimity of the Government. I hope that this will be recognised.
The procedure of the asterisk has obtained since before the war. It has not happened only to this Bill. Sixty Bills have been treated in this way.
The Motion is esssentially a procedural one. I hope that, in view of the assurances that I have given, especially that in relation to the Committee on Procedure, and in the context of the precedents, the sponsors of the Motion will be content with the action which has been taken both in respect of their Motion and in respect of the Bill.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The Leader of the House has made a very emollient speech, but if the Government believe that it is right that the House should have time to discuss a great social and moral issue why must it be in the middle of the night? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, the timing of this in itself is a very doubtful approach.
The Leader of the House expressed the original and rather strange doctrine that


there are issues on which the Government believe it right to be neutral but on which the House should be given the opportunity to make up its mind. To achieve that, the asterisk is applied to a Private Members' Bill on the advice of the authorities of the House. That broadly is the basis on which we are proceeding.
Before I say any more to the Leader of the House, I want to acknowledge the service which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has done the House tonight and the way in which he recognised that this is a House of Commons matter. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend already realises that the service that he has rendered to us has been put to good use.
It is false to argue that the Motion is a wrecking one. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, a good Bill cannot be put through in the wrong way. That is the simple answer we give to those who assert that this is a wrecking Motion.
I was sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). No one defends more stoutly the rights of the House of Commons and, on occasion, the rights of private Members than he does. I cannot help feeling that in a different context he would have made a different speech.
I want to discuss the practical consequences of the Government's action. I am not qualified to argue the constitutional rights and wrongs, although I have put my name to the Motion. Certain practical consequences may flow from the way in which the Government are going about this. The Leader of the House is entitled to say that this is not a new procedure. We accept that. Of course Government time has been given to Private Members' Bills before, but it is also true that no Government have gone so far in developing the regular practice of hedging their bets on Bills involving difficult social questions and matters of sensitive social reform and in developing a sort of hybrid Bill. It is the regular use of this procedure—we have had four prime examples of this practice in the lifetime of this Government—which so many of us find objectionable.
Whether or not it is constitutionally wrong, I am sure that in its effects it is dangerous. It is natural, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, that the Government should want on some of these matters to take the temperature of the water, to take the voice of the House of Commons, although, I must add, the voice of the House of Commons on a Private Members' Bill, taken when private Members' votes are taken, is not always a reliable guide to what opinion in the House of Commons may be. We have had examples of that.
While it may be an advantage for the Government, for the subject matter of the Bill and for those who may be affected by the Bill quite other consequences flow. There may be grave disadvantages, as we have seen with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill.
Both the Private Members' Bill and the Government Bill systems possess very great advantages. Both systems by themselves work well. It is when the Government bring them into doubtful union that they develop a certain course and we get, as, I believe, we shall get with this Bill, the worst of both worlds. I would have thought that our mechanism for Private Members' Bills was a great deal better than even we think.
Of course, there are failures and disappointments, sometimes repeated, for hon. Members. An hon. Member may have to persist one, two, three or four years, as hon. Members have done with various projects and ideas, but that mechanism provides certain safeguards. It promotes public discussion and, very often, second thoughts. A Bill which is lost under the private Members' machinery in one Session comes forward in a different form the next Session, and there have been examples of this. Indeed, there is a long list of Bills which have been dealt with in that way.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Was A. P. Herbert's Bill any the worse for the fact that the Tory Government of the day facilitated it? I think it is right to say that every Divorce Bill of the last hundred years, save for one minor amendment, has been a Private Member's Bill and no Government have touched it.

Mr. Deedes: It happened by a freak that I was in the House in another


capacity when A. P. Herbert's Bill was passed. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that the circumstances of that Bill were quite exceptional. It is an error to try to draw too many conclusions from what happened to that Bill. I certainly would not wish to cite that instance for either the defence or the prosecution.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): What would the right hon. Gentleman say about the facilitating of the passage of the Divorce (Scotland) Bill on 21st July, 1964?

Mr. Deedes: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said about the circumstances of that Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of listening to my argument. I have accepted precedents and that other Governments, Tory and Labour, have done this, but I am trying to show what may flow from the regular practice of doing this.
The safeguard, to which I have referred, on Private Members' Bills to some extent replaces the safeguards guaranteed in Bills for which the Government have given responsibility from the start, including the rigours and disciplines of Departmental work. No one who has seen this process at work in a Government Department will doubt its thoroughness. A Bill which comes before the House—as the Divorce Reform Bill, if it were a Government Bill, would come before the House—which has been through a Government Department has not only had ample preparation, but it has had the benefit of consultation, and I stress consultation.
There is an obligation in a Bill for which the Government are wholly responsible to carry out certain consultations, which in this instance have not been carried out. I will not go into detail, but it has not been done. It is that process alone which leads me to think that it is impracticable and dangerous to split Government responsibility in a matter of this kind—in other words, as the Leader of the House has put it, to display neutrality at an early stage until an unspecified point, and thereafter to assume responsibility when it is too late.
Certain processes are implicit in Government responsibility for a Bill, which in the case of the present Bill are now beyond recall. One at least of these is Departmental concentration on what is passed, which leads to the spraying of the Amendment Paper with Government Amendments on most Government Bills which come forward. Where are the Government Amendments on the Paper to this Measure? Does the Leader of the House doubt that if this were a Government Bill, there would be a large number of Government Amendments—drafting Amendments, possibly, but there would be a large number of Government Amendments to the Bill? Perhaps there will be in another place. That remains to be seen.
For certain Measures—I certainly include this subject—those consultations are indispensable. There is one other difference between the process which the Leader of the House described to us and the process which the Bill is suffering, or enjoying. When a Government are responsible for a Bill from the start, the Department tends to think its consequences through. At least, it thinks them through more thoroughly than happens on a Private Members' Bill the future of which is uncertain until the last moment. Why should a Department concentrate upon the likely consequences of a Bill when no one knows until a very late stage whether it will be a reality or not? With a Bill of its own, however, the Department knows exactly where its responsibilities lie.

Mr. Ridley: Can I believe my ears? Do I hear my right hon. Friend advocating legislation by the Civil Service?

Mr. Deedes: My hon. Friend has mistaken my argument. I shall not take up time by repeating it. I am pointing out that the Private Member's Bill is an admirable mechanism, and the Public Bill is a better mechanism than is sometimes supposed, but when the two are mixed there is trouble. That is the short point I make.
I was stressing that more thorough attention is given to the future consequences of Bills when the Government assume responsibility from the start than is likely to be given to a Private Member's Bill. That is certainly true of two Private Members' Bills of which we have had recent experience, the last being the


one promoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill.
I add in passing that the present Bill provides an example of what I am saying. I shall not dwell on the matter, but it is conceded—I put it in a detached way—that certain financial aspects may be deficient, and it is also, I believe, assumed that certain remedies may be applied in the future, perhaps in the next Session. I find it difficult to believe that, if the Government had been responsible for the Bill from the start, these things would not have been joined together so that we had the satisfaction of a single Measure and knew where we were. To my mind, that in itself is an indication of the detrimental way in which the Government are proceeding.

Mr. John Mendelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that among all the Measures which my right hon. Friends have brought forward as a Government since 1964, there is not one in which the financial provisions have been found to be deficient since their passage?

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately eluding the point I am making. I have accepted the precedents. Both Governments have done it. But I say that making it a regular practice increases the dangers of the practice.

Mr. Mendelson: That is not my point.

Mr. Deedes: It is not even a simple matter of the Government waiting to hear the voice of the House, waiting to see which way the cat jumps, to put it crudely, and then deciding to give time. I must say that the expression "giving the House time" seems, in the circumstances of our consideration of this Bill, most inappropriate. What it means is, "Tell the House to sit up all night". That is the effect of it. The Leader of the House said that the Government think it right to give the House an opportunity to make up its mind on a great moral issue. So we can sit here all night on the Bill, as we should have done from 10 o'clock were it not for this procedural Motion. He knows that that is humbug.
Personally, I do not not mind. I think that the House works well late at night. I do not quarrel with late night sittings. They have their virtues. But there is

something cynical in a Government's attitude which says, "If you want to talk further on this great moral issue, you can sit up all night". It was done on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill; we spent not one but two nights doing it, but I do not think that the Bill was improved thereby. It may be rough on the House. It may turn out to be a great deal rougher on the Government. First, they stand open to the charge of being guilty of denial of Government responsibility. I insist, with my right hon. and learned Friend, that the action over the Bill is a denial of full Government responsibility.
I am not entering my views about the Bill, but I am rather moved by some of the letters I receive urging the passage or the holding up of the Bill. What those who write cannot be expected to know is that they are not getting an absolutely first-class Bill. I will not describe it as second class, but it is not first class. They can have no knowledge of the methods being used, which are not the best we can apply to Bills of this kind, or the consequences. They are probably not much interested in whether the Government are acting constitutionally or not. They are interested in what the effects will be.
A profession of neutrality, a declining of full responsibility, and then allowing the Bill to go through by the misuse of Parliament is a disturbing combination. The tragedy is that some of those whom the Bill seeks to protect are far more likely to suffer from this than those who are now responsible for this action.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: The House will be relieved to hear that I shall detain it for only a couple of minutes, and possibly even less—that is, for only about two minutes on the Motion, but later, when we come to the Divorce Bill, I shall feel free to talk gently through the night and into the small hours if necessary, or even into matins and lauds or vespers and compline tomorrow night.
I am disappointed that the Government have taken this step. I confess with equal frankness that the reason is that I do not like the Bill. But the Motion is not asking me to express my disappointment, but asks me to say that what the Government are doing is unconstitutional,


and the fact is that it is not. What I am concerned about tonight is the facts, and Governments have been doing this for years. That is a fact. Nothing is more important than a fact. All the Standing Orders and rules of procedure fall flat on their face before a fact. As used to be said a thousand years ago, Contra factum non valet argumentum. No argument stands up against a fact The Motion asks me to deny a fact, and that I will never do.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I must declare that I have an interest in seeing the passage of the Bill, being one of its sponsors. But whether or not the Bill passes is an entirely separate issue from whether we should pass the Motion.
Although the two issues are entirely separate, it is curious how many hon. Members colour their opinion about on according to what they think about the other. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) on being an exception to that, because he has not allowed his dislike for the Bill to allow him to support the Motion.
It must follow that hon. Gentlemen who dislike the Bill will like the Motion, because the result of passing it would be seriously to incommode the Bill. I am not a bit surprised by the large number of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the Motion, because they want to see the Bill defeated.

Sir D. Glover: I think that my hon. Friend is being unjust to many of his colleagues on both hides of the House. I support my hon. and learned Friend on the Motion. He is doing a great constitutional service to the House. Here is a matter of great constitutional importance. I propose taking no part in the Bill.

Mr. Ridley: I can only say to my hon. Friend that it is clear that there is a preference on the part of the Government in favour of the Bill, as a result of which they have given time to it. To some extent I go along with what he says. The only part of the speech of the Leader of the House which I found utterly unconvincing in what was otherwise an acceptable speech, was when he said that the

Government accepted no responsibility, and were entirely neutral. How can they be neutral, providing time tonight for us to discuss the Bill? Parliamentary time is important. Without time, nothing passes, with time Bills roll inexorably on, with, of course, that notable exception, the Parliament (No. 2) Bill which, despite limitless quantities of time, never found its way to the Statute Book.
This preference which the Government have given the Bill must mean that they accept a particular responsibility for it. It is idle and foolish to pretend that they do not. Would the Government have given the Bill time if it had meant that divorce was much more difficult, if it had become impossible? Would we still be considering it tonight? Of course not. There is no doubt that this is a preferential act on the part of the Government, in making time available.
The question that must be considered is whether they were right or wrong to do so. There are, broadly speaking, three courses of action which the Government could have taken in relation to the Bill. They could have made it a Government Bill, or they could have left it to the vagaries of the Private Members' Bill procedure, or they could have taken the course which they have taken. I ask hon. Gentlemen whether they would have liked this to be a Government Bill. Would they like the Government Whips to be put on on a matter like this? There is not doubt that on matters of conscience, of religion, personal and sexual matters—and many of these are—it is totally obnoxious to put a Whip on.
Therefore, a straight Government Bill is out of the question. Equally, if it were a Private Members' Bill, it would not have a hope in hell of passing. I take great pride in having, with two or three hon. Friends, almost single-handed, defeated a Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). It came second in the Ballot one year and like Horatio we manned the bridge night after night, and prevented it passing. Tiny minorities can prevent a Private Members' Bill becoming law. So we are left with the one alternative, which the Government have chosen.
There is one other point, and it is whether the Government, having been partial, having taken responsibility for putting this Bill down and given it


preferential treatment, should accept responsibility for the content and form of the Bill. This is the last point made by opponents of the Bill, with great force by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). Of course the Government must give an opinion. When I have written to them about the Bill and its predecessor last year, they have answered my letters with opinions, on the assumption that certain words remained in the Bill. I submit that with a Bill which has not got the Whips on, the Government cannot say categorically "Our opinion is that this or that or the other should prevail" because they cannot enforce it by pushing their majority through the Lobby in support of their point of view. It would be totally wrong for the Government when adopting the procedure which they have adopted to say "It is our intention that Clause 1 should be this way or that way" when they have no majority and no whipping power. They can only interpret and comment as the Bill goes through.
The alternative advocated tonight would mean that we have the Whips on and this is an intolerable alternative. Under the circumstances, the Government are probably right to do what they are doing. Otherwise this House would have to admit that under its present procedures there was no means by which personal, almost religious reforms could be raised and discussed. But I believe that the Leader of the House is right to refer this matter to the Select Committee because, unless we can have a debate as to how the procedure can be improved, these various dilemmas can never be resolved. As the situation is, it is clear that there is no other way in which the House can legislate even if there is a large majority for any given Measure. I shall therefore vote against the Motion.

12 midnight.

Mr. Simon Mahon: The Motion questions the Government's neutrality. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) heads a distinguished list of supporters of the Motion. I want to ask him when he and they got this sudden conversion. I am sure that he will recall that, on 17th December last, on Second Reading, with less eloquence but certainly with more force, I made every one of the points contained in the Motion.
Although I had a short term in the Whips' Office at one time, I do not profess to be very knowledgeable about procedure, but I know some little about it. The House will forgive many things but it will not forgive lack of courage and in my own case I am sure that, if I did not support the Motion, I should be rightly accused of political cowardice.
I do not want to be told by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what happened under Conservative Administrations. I was not responsible for them. But I, my family and all belonging to me have had a lot to do over a lifetime with creating the possibility for my right hon. Friends to sit where they are now. That does not give me greater claim than anyone else but it does not give me less. I know that the House does not particularly like hon. Members quoting speeches, least of all their own, but I want to recall what I said on Second Reading. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General spoke of the Government's neutrality but said that they felt this was a matter of great important on which the House should come to a conclusion. I asked him why, in that case, the Government did not have the courage to introduce the Bill themselves. I said:
I have been filled with sadness by some of the attitudes of the Labour Government. I have reported it to the highest authorities in the Labour Government. They are doing things which they should not be doing and they have done things which they should not have done. The have introduced social legislation which is no part of Labour philosophy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1086.]

Sir L. Heald: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have been guilty of breach of copyright.

Mr. Mahon: The last thing I wish to do is to embark upon a legal argument with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mention has been made of moral difficulties and moral principles. I betray no secrets when I say that the present Government are very concerned about the future of another Bill. It is not a Bill involving moral principles, but it will have an effect on the old principles in which the Labour Party believed. Therefore, confusions and conflicts arise over many other kinds of legislation than that which we are now discussing.
The people have a right to know whether the Cabinet has been neutral in this matter. People wish to be reassured. I have supported with great conviction the activities of the Labour Party. On this occasion I want to be reassured.
I have said that I am not satisfied about the situation in regard to Private Members' Bills as against Public Bills. We live in a world in which tremendous pressures are exerted from outside, some of which are for the good of the country, some of which are evil. Sometimes these outside pressure groups, which we all know exist, can take on in this House an importance which they do not deserve.
The Government recently have taken up a stance on two occasions to my knowledge, first on the Abortion Bill, and now on the Divorce Reform Bill. Maybe there are more, but those two are well known to me because I have been involved in both over many months, indeed years. The neutrality of the Government on those Measures has been questionable. I do not say this with relish.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has returned to the Chamber, because I am coming to my final point, in which I wish to put to him a question. I am trying to keep to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, to be brief. My right hon. Friend has said that he will consider our dilemma and will consider the matter in relation to the Select Committee on Procedure. I ask the Leader of the House, knowing the dilemma of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, remembering how unhappy many of us are, whether it is wise for the Government to embark on this course.
The Sunday Times on 8th June in "Spectrum" contained a rather alarming statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). It is headed, "Crisis for divorce reform", and it states:
We have twisted the Government's arm to get this time"—
my hon. Friend's name is then quoted—
and now, because of the low state of morale in Parliament, the Bill is in danger. If we falter it will mean that this Parliament is finished in terms of reform.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend wishes to intervene to elaborate that statement or whether the Leader of the

House wishes to say which arm was twisted, whose arm was twisted, or whether it was in this House or in another House. This is the position. I am surprised that neither my right hon. Friend nor my hon. Friend wish to respond.

Mr. Peart: If my hon. Friend challenges me, may I say that I have had no arm twisted.

Mr. Mahon: Nevertheless, that statement was made by a responsible newspaper, and I had to pursue that line of argument before I could get any reaction from either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leo Abse: My hon. Friend may be sure that if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, I shall be commenting on that.

Mr. Mahon: No matter what eloquence my hon. Friend may use—and we are used to that— it is hardly the right language to use on such an important Bill to say that they had to twist the Government's arm. It was never part of my book, but I am finding so many things which are part of my book are not shared by other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) spoke about Catholics. I am a Catholic and I am also a member of the Labour Party. It may interest my hon. Friend to know that I have been one almost as long as I have been the other.
My hon. Friend asked what the position would be if all the Catholics were tipped out of the Cabinet. I can assure him that, examining today's Cabinet, no great constitutional crisis would occur. I do not think that it would cause too much ruffling in the dovecotes on the other side of the House either. I suppose that we have had our day, but it may be that it will come again and we shall be able to add a little more enlightenment.
I do not believe that the Government are neutral on this Bill. A great deal more elucidation will have to be given before I believe them to be neutral. I am aware of the pressures existing outside this House. I want to know from my Government whether this is the position. Of course they deny it, but I tell them,


with every atom of truth at my command, that I do not believe them to be neutral in these issues.
The Government will have to convince not only me, but the rest of the country, which feels, as I do, that it is happening too regularly. Are they telling the ordinary people of this country that, in an argument going on in this House on such an important matter, in which their homes, families, marriages and particularly the children of this nation are so vitally concerned, they are completely neutral? Speeches have been made about the conditions of our children over many years—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not debate the issues in the Bill.

Mr. Mahon: I agree, and I bow to your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, how do they feel about this Bill being debated right through the night and perhaps the following day?
Do the Government really think that this is the right way to deal with this Measure? Of course it is not, any more than it was the right way to deal with the other social legislation. If the Government want a decision on this Bill, I have no objection. I do not want my will to override anybody else's, but if that is what the Government want they ought to realise that only 291 hon. Members have voted on this issue. There were 188 votes in favour of giving the Bill a Second Reading, and 103 against.
We are being sympathetic to the sponsors of the Bill. On many Fridays they could not mount the Closure, yet here we are getting ready to debate this Measure into the early hours of the morning. The Government have a lot to answer for in this regard. I do not mind hon. Gentlemen opposite cheering. On some other occasion I may be able to say what I think of them. The argument this evening is with the Government. I do not believe that they are neutral, and I do not believe their expressions of neutrality.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I am sure we all agree that the House is indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and his right hon. and hon. Friends for giving us the opportunity to have this

debate. I am happy to follow that by saying that the House is indebted to the Leader of the House and to the Government for taking the further steps that were necessary. There could not have been this debate unless the Motion had been tabled, but equally there could not have been this debate unless the Leader of the House and the Government had taken the necessary steps to ensure that there could be a debate. This is a good example of the proper use of the power of the Government to arrange the business of the House, and it would be less than generous not to recognise that action on the part of the Leader of the House and the Government. I think that that action was taken because the Leader of the House rightly recognises that there are matters of great concern to this House as a House of Commons, and most hon. Members who have participated in the debate have done so in that spirit.
A number of very important matters have been canvassed during the debate. In view of Mr. Speaker's wish that speeches should be brief I shall not canvass those arguments again. I want to refer to only two points. I stress the importance of not placing too much emphasis upon precedent. Reference has been made in particular to the Divorce (Scotland) Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland rather suggested that that was a precedent for what the Government were doing tonight. I have looked at the Committee stage of that Bill, and I find that it was most bitterly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for Scotland, so I scarcely think that had he remembered that he would have cited that as an example to support what is being done here. In any event, one cannot really rely on these precedents unless one looks at them and sees what time was given.
That brings me to my second point, and this really is the heart of the matter that we are considering tonight. As the Leader of the House said, of course there may be occasions on which the Government ought to give time to Private Members' Bills to enable the House to come to a conclusion, or, to quote the right hon. Gentleman, "to make up its mind on great matters which affect the community".
That is all very well if what is given is time, but some of us feel that to make it possible for "a great matter affecting the community" to be the subject of a debate starting at 10 o'clock and going on through the night makes very little sense and does very little, if anything, to restore the reputation of this House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) may make his speech if he catches Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. This is especially the kind of debate where impatience with other people's arguments is out of place. Hon. Members may disagree with them, but they should have patience with them. It is my view, and it may be shared by others, that many people in this country think, to use an expression which is common in my part of the country, that we are daft to discuss these sorts of things in the early hours of the morning. It entirely escapes them how, between the hours of 10 at night and 4, 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, we can properly come to conclusions on matters that affect their lives.
There are some who feel that it is not a very accurate use of words to call this procedure "giving time". There is a big difference between the Government coming to the conclusion that there is a great matter affecting the community upon which the House should come to a decision, and then following up that decision by giving the House Government time—which is what, to the best of my knowledge and researches, happened on the Divorce (Scotland) Bill—and merely suspending the Rule, thus making possible the discussion of that matter at what most people would regard as a quite unearthly and wholly unsuitable time of the day or night.

Mr. John Fraser: There is a good attendance.

Mr. Percival: There is a very good attendance upon this particular Motion because I think and hope that a substantial number of hon. Members regard this Motion as important. But, as one who has heard practically every Word of the progress of this Bill, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the attendance on this Motion is far greater than the attendance has been upon the Bill itself. I express the opinion that it is far greater

than the attendance will be upon the discussion of this Bill at 4 o'clock in the morning, if it is proceeded with.
The hon. Gentleman is emphasising my point. We all know that when such matters are discussed during the night, any member of the public coming in here at 4 o'clock in the morning and seeing the number of Members taking part in the debate on this great matter affecting the community would think we were daft and would wonder how on earth we felt that with such a small attendance we could do justice to their needs and desires. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Harrow, East has views to the contrary, we shall see him—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was wondering what would happen if members of the public came here one morning at 11 o'clock and looked around for some of the lawyers. I wonder whether the lawyers would be here or whether they would be pursuing their business elsewhere.

Mr. Percival: I cannot help observing that that is the kind of bad-tempered and ill-mannered comment which has no place whatever in a debate of this kind. But if the hon. Gentleman wants a more precise answer to that comment, may I invite him to look at the Committee Reports of the Divorce Reform Bill and see how many practising lawyers were regular attenders on that Bill. He may then have the good grace to apologise.
There are so many important points arising that we are apt not to distinguish the one from the other, and I want to make clear a point which seems to me to be important above all in the future interests of this House, from the point of view both of doing a decent job and of it being apparent to the country that we are doing a good job of work. I question the habit of discussing great matters affecting the community at the unearthly hours at which it is becoming the practice to discuss them. That makes it appear that I am in sympathy with the Motion. It is a matter for individual Members whether they vote upon it or not. It is very unfortunate that this question arises on such a controversial Bill, because that has the effect that any vote on the Motion would inevitably be


coloured by the views of individual Members on the Bill, and that might be regrettable.

Mr. John Lee: 'As one who has many reservations about the Bill and is by no means certain to vote for its Third Reading, may I put it to the hon. and learned Gentlemen that it would have been more fortunate if the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) had not put it in such tendentious and explosive terms as to amount almost to a censure of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Percival: It is not for me to comment on that. If the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. and learned Friend move the Motion, he will agree that he did it in very measured terms, whatever the terms of the Motion may be. Few hon. Members have had very much in mind the terms of the Motion: we have all been aware that there is something at stake here which is of importance to the House in the long run. It is the important general issue rather than the wording of the Motion with which we are concerned. It is for the House to decide whether there should be a vote and for individual hon. Members to decide how to vote, but, in view of the highly controversial nature of the Bill and the connection which there may be felt to be between the Bill and the Motion, it might be an unrepresentative decision if there were a vote.

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: It is a pity that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) ignored Mr. Speaker's request for brief speeches. Instead, he treated us to one of those typically long and meandering speeches of his, delivered with all the verve of a pettifogging provincial attorney pursuing a case of someone summoned for not having a dog licence. For those who oppose the Motion, that is a splendid thing, but the issue which the House must determine is a narrow one. It is whether the House, as this country's representative body, should come to a determination on a matter which affects every adult person in the land at some time or other, and which has been debated for more than two decades inside and outside the House.
One hon. Member opposite thought that there should be a better procedure

for these matters; and, with his usual courtesy and charm, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has agreed to consider that. The House should be able to have a straight vote on whether it should have more time for Measures like this. That, in effect, is what we shall be called upon to determine tonight, but by rather a roundabout route.

Mr. John Hall: I am rather concerned by the hon. Member's earlier remarks. He said that we would be discussing a Measure affecting every adult in the country. Is he assuming that all of us would be involved in divorce proceedings?

Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that he is not likely to be beseiged by large numbers of ladies who wish to take him away. That is not the point. This concerns the state in which most people live together, and it is a matter of considerable importance.
I thought it particularly unfortunate that such people as the hon. and learned Member for Southport and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) should have made a great deal of the House having to discuss the real kernel of this matter in the early hours of the morning, and then should have proceeded to discuss all the peripheral and preliminary issues at such great length as to ensure, should the Motion be rejected, that we shall be discussing the Measure to a very late hour indeed.
I was not at all impressed by what the right hon. Member for Ashford said when he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) of defending the Government in pursuing a method which was oppressive of the House. My hon. Friend, of course, was doing the exact opposite. The Government are not trying to get through some measure of Government business. They are seeking to give private Members more time to determine an issue of considerable importance.
This was underlined when the right hon. Member for Ashford complained that if we went ahead and discussed the Measure there would have been no consultation with outside bodies. It is the complaint of many private Members that they are not consulted enough


while outside bodies are consulted. Similarly, the right hon. Gentleman advanced an argument that Government Departments would not be consulted, but the complaint of many hon. Members is that Government Departments and civil servants are consulted far too much and private Members of the House not enough. So I dismiss those arguments of his.
It has been suggested that this is not a wrecking Motion. I should feel more confident that I could accept that argument if the fugleman were not the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who, over several months, has been opposing the Bill in question with all the vigour he can command. I should have been far more easily persuaded that this was not intended as a wrecking Motion if some other private Member had headed the list of hon. Members sponsoring it.
The Leader of the House and the Government are to be congratulated on giving the House the opportunity to determine this matter. It is quite wrong, offensive and untrue to suggest that the Government have in some way been trying to interfere with private Members' time. Over the last year private Members have had more time than private Members have had at any such time in the past 30 years. I should have thought that something which every back bencher ought to applaud.
The argument about precedents also falls to the ground, because if one is proud of this House and proud of its sovereignty one must acknowledge that it can reverse its decisions, and can change its mind, when better views come forward. That was the only part of the speech by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) with which I found myself in agreement. I wish he would come to the House more and talk more about this sort of question. I do not know where he has gone now. I hope nobody has given him £2,000 and a passport to Wales, and that we shall be hearing more from him on this and other matters in the future.
It has been suggested that the correct procedure would be for the Government to take over this Measure. That point was put by my hon. Friend the Member

for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). I would ask those who support this view to consider it very carefully indeed. The proposed Bill is not a party political proposal at all. It is one on which many citizens have deeply held religious views and it is quite proper that they should seek to impress those upon Parliament. If we made this a Government Measure we should also be making a religious issue a party-political issue, and we have not had that sort of thing in this House or in this country since the time of the early Education Acts. It would be a most retrograde step if Measures of this sort were made issues of party policy, or if the onus of introducing such Measures were put on the Government, of whatever party-political complexion.
I think the Government and the Leader of the House have fulfilled their obligations to private Members very well indeed. They have not sought to be oppressive. They have, indeed, given private Members freedom to come to a determination on this important matter, and for those reasons I think the Motion should be defeated.
More: if those who have made speeches in support of the Motion believe that it is not intended as a wrecking Motion and want to get on to discuss the important matters ahead of us, they ought to seek an early opportunity to withdraw the Motion and to let the House get on with discussing those important matters.

12.36 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) argued that the Government were right in facilitating the passage of what he said many people regarded as a most important social Measure. The Motion objects to the priority which the Measure is being given. If it is a most important social Measure, it is extraordinary that none of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who drew one of the first eight places in the Ballot thought fit to give that place to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the Bill. We are discussing the Motion.

Mr. Kimball: I was discussing the first eight places in the Ballot, for the Motion is necessary only because none of the right hon. or hon. Gentlemen who


drew the first eight places in the Ballot decided to give his place to what hon. Members have argued is a most important Bill.
The Leader of the House said that the procedure for dealing with Private Members' Bills warranted some review, particularly as we are having this debate. If he looks at the eight days used for Second Readings he will see that at least two were not exactly wasted but were used for debates which could have taken place on Motions and for Bills which made good Parliamentary debating points to annoy hon. Members opposite. They can hardly be said to have been devoted to Bills which it was even hoped would reach the Statute Book this Session.
The most extraordinary idea has grown up that hon. Members who introduce Private Members' Bills should expect to get them through the House within the first or second year of introducing them. That has never been the case. Hon. Members will recall that the Racial Discrimination Bill came under starter's orders year after year and regularly failed at the first fence—but there was no argument that that should be given Government time. The Animal Boarding Establishments Bill appeared four times on the Order Paper before it completed its Parliamentary course.
We have seen the abuse of Parliamentary procedure to which the Motion refers used no fewer than five times by the present Government. As a result, three Bills have reached the Statute Book. Our existing Private Members' Bill procedure protects minority rights in the country—I am not suggesting that the interests of all married women in the country are in any way a minority right—and, in general, under normal Parliamentary procedure no controversial Private Members' Bill should ever get through, provided that people feel strongly enough about it to organise proper opposition. I agree that Bills which draw the first eight places are very difficult to defeat. They often fail in Committee or on Report when enthusiasm and support for them lapses during the long, hot days of May and June. In this case we should be under-estimating the efforts of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) if we

thought that his support and enthusiasm for this Measure would ever lapse.
We must also consider the position of people who are opposed to these Bills and the great expense which the House puts on bodies when they try to oppose Private Members' Bills. The opposition is very expensive. It involves letters to hon. Members and it involves the Press and television and advertising generally, and some organisations even find it necessary to employ a public relations man as a very expensive fifth wheel to the carriage in their campaign against Parliamentary legislation. Women's organisations and others who have been opposed to the Bill might in this case have been right in saying, "We will not waste our money and organisation in this Session of Parliament when the Bill is drawn and running only in place nine in the Ballot." They might have taken that view, considering that the Measure could have been defeated by normal Parliamentary tactics had not the Government decided to cheat.

Mr. Ivor Richard: The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase, "had not the Government decided to cheat," which seems to represent the terms of the Motion.
In a situation in which the Government are faced with the introduction of a Bill not for the first time but for the third time in a period of five or six years and in which, for the third time, it gets a Second Reading and there is clearly a considerable body of public opinion in favour of it, surely it is the duty of the Government to do two things: first—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a speech disguised as an intervention.

Mr. Richard: I am not trying to poach the hon. Gentleman's time but to put a serious proposition.
Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, in those circumstances, the Government, whatever their party, have a duty, first, to be responsive to the thrice-expressed opinion of the House, and, secondly, to public opinion outside?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not make a speech in lieu of an intervention.

Mr. Kimball: I understand that the sponsors of the Bill have not agreed to


any substantial Amendments being made since the Measure was introduced. My original point, therefore, holds good; that if this is such an important Bill, why did not one of the eight hon. Members in the Ballot decide to give it his place? That is my principal reason for saying that we should vote for the Motion and not give the Bill the priority which the Government are now seeking to give it.
Just under 300 hon. Members took part in the Ballot on 5th November and, as the Father of the House said, every one was a potential legislator. Twenty-seven were fortunate, some of whom were wise in choosing a non-controversial Bill which is now almost on the Statute Book. Why should this Measure and the hon. Member who has given it his Ballot place get preference over all the others, simply because the Government do not have the guts to say, "We want the Bill" and so make it a Government Measure?

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I would not say that when the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) tabled the Motion, he intended it to be a wrecking proposal. I suspect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's innocence is equalled only by the innocence of the Government Chief Whip who, with great magnanimity, saw to it that this Motion would come up for discussion at this late hour, and before the Bill.
I am certain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is deeply interested in constitutional questions, is genuinely committed to a search for the aetiology of the asterisk, a matter about which he spoke with great skill I am equally certain that the Chief Whip wanted to be sure that equity would be shown in every respect of those who take an opposing view to the sponsors of the Bill.
However, one cannot be so certain that a debate of this kind, interesting and fascinating though it is, will raise the status of this House. Hon. Members must be aware that, irrespective of the merits of the Bill, about which one cannot speak at this point, the question whether or not the Bill will be passed affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in Britain.
I do not think that, after so many years have passed and when the House has resolutely shown its desire for change on so many occasions, it becomes the House or helps its status to be spending so much time on a Motion of this kind, which will be interpreted by the outside world not as a fascinating constitutional discussion but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale interpreted it, as a wrecking Motion which the opponents of the Bill are using to dash once again the expectations and hopes of vast numbers of citizens.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not drift into the merits of the Bill in which I suspect he is interested.

Mr. Abse: My interest is of course based not only on the merits of the Bill which I hope we shall be discussing. My interest is in the general question. The general question is how we can bring about a position where matters of great importance, matters where quite clearly the community has shown that it is interested, matters which have been discussed and debated for so long, can be brought to a conclusion.
There was a time when I would have said all Governments had a long and dishonourable tradition in eschewing legislation which impinges on human relations and I would have said that they did it out of cowardice and for wrong reasons. In my time in this House I have seen a certain convention built up. It has not been formalised but conventions grow, like the asterisk perhaps, in a curious way. The convention which has grown up and eventually been accelerated under the Labour Government is a convention that when public opinion sufficiently shows itself on an issue, the House, each hon. Member, should have an opportunity of expressing a view and coming to a conclusion. This is something for which this Parliament I believe will be remembered. [Interruption.] It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) feels dismayed, but I think that when the history of this Parliament is written, despite our interest in acute party issues, it will be seen that this was a Parliament which, however clumsily, did attempt to grapple, even in a fumbling way, with social questions which were not shirked.
Therefore, I do not believe that this Government is worthy of criticism on this


score. Rather they have shown that they are trying to provide for all hon. Members an opportunity of determining these issues. They have done it again. The Leader of the House has made clear that the Government have taken the bold decision that they want to have this matter resolved and are determined that it shall be resolved. I hope that the fact that this discussion is taking place at this bizarre hour on a constitutional issue will not in any way weaken this resolve. I hope that in the way it has gone on up to the present where hundreds of hon. Members, have as it were, twisted the arm of the Government—that may be a clumsy way of expressing it but it is a way of saying it—because they want the Bill, that will go on too.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Abse: No, I am not giving way. I think the House has to try to think how to formalise what is going on but not in a way which will gain for a Government either praise or opprobrium for a Bill which cuts across party lines. It may be that the suggestion by the Leader of the House that these matters should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure

would be valuable so far as we can search for a way in which a Government could in Government time and not at odd hours allow a Bill to be pursued when the House and country have shown they want it discussed with the Whips off, showing that the Bill as such does not belong to the Government.

I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey will believe that we have had a good discussion and had the opportunity through the intervention of the Chief Whip to have such a discussion. Through the intervention of the Leader of the House we have had some good suggestions. He gave a hint that he hoped the time would come when he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion. So that the community outside can have respect for this House knowing that it will deal with social problems, I hope that moment has come.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 62.

Division No. 252.]
AYES
[12.50 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Emery, Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Ashley, Jack
Ennals, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Nigel
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kenyon, Clifford


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, John (Reading)


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Boston, Terence
Garrett, W. E.
Lipton, Marcus


Boyden, James
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Loughlin, Charles


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Luard, Evan



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lubbock, Eric


Brooks, Edwin
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
MacColl, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacDermot, Niall


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hamling, William
Macdonald, A. H.


Cant, R. B.
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marks, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Dalyell, Tam
Hay, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Delargy, Hugh
Hobden, Dennis
Mendelson, John


Dell, Edmund
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Bruce


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hornby, Richard
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Dickens, James
Horner, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dobson, Ray
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Driberg, Tom
Howie, W.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dunnett, Jack
Huckfield, Leslie
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hunt, John
Murray, Albert


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Newens, Stan


Ellis, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Oakes, Gordon




Ogden, Eric
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Tapsell, Peter


Oram, Albert E.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Taverne, Dick


Orbach, Maurice
Roebuck, Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Rowlands, E.
Tinn, James


Paget, R. T.
Scott, Nicholas
Varley, Eric G.


Palmer, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert
Vickers, Dame Joan


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurence
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Skeffington, Arthur
Winnick, David


Rees, Merlyn
Small, William



Richard, Ivor
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hiley, Joseph
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Black, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Body, Richard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Silvester, Frederick


Cordle, John
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tilney, John


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Waddington, David


Fortescue, Tim
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wright, Esmond


Grant-Ferris, R.
Onslow, Cranley



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Peter Kirk and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Marcus Kimball.

Question put accordingly and negatived.

Sir Stephen McAdden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me your advice, for the protection of the interests of private Members, a subject which we were discussing until a few moments ago. You will have noticed that the Motion was one to which I had added my name. I had hoped to have opportunity to express my view about it, and I am sure that, given the chance, you would have used your discretion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and called me. Unfortunately, such benevolent action on your part was frustrated by the action of the Government Chief Whip, on a Private Member's Bill, in moving the Closure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. That point has already been dealt with. The Closure was carried. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise it further.

Orders of the Day — DIVORCE REFORM BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2nd May], That the Clause (Voluntary restriction of divorce), proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.

(1) This section shall apply if before or after marriage the parties thereto have agreed in writing that their marriage shall be a lifelong union dissoluble only by death;

Provided that no particular form of words shall be required for such agreement.

(2) Where a respondent satisfies the court that he and the petitioner have entered into such an agreement as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section then the court shall not grant a decree of divorce, but shall, if satisfied of the existence of any such fact as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act, and if so requested by the petitioner, grant a decree of judicial separation.—[Mr. Bruce Campbell.]

Question again proposed.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I call Mr. Abse.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the debate was adjourned, I had the Floor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The record I have indicates that another hon. Member had the Floor and did not now seek to speak further.

Mr. Delargy: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you consult HANSARD to see who is there shown as having the Floor?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have referred to HANSARD, and my reply to the hon. Gentleman gave what HANSARD discloses.

Mr. Alec Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I be of assistance? HANSARD of 9th May indicates that my hon. Friend did have the Floor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. May I apologise. I inadvertently referred to the wrong HANSARD. I referred to HANSARD of 2nd May.

Mr. Delargy: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I do not intend to indulge in any filibustering tonight. I am not saying that filibusters are not sometimes useful, but I cannot see any use in filibustering at the beginning of a debate that might last three days and three nights. It could.
Since it is now five weeks today since we last looked at the new Clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), may I remind the House briefly of what it was about. It says—I paraphrase the hon. and learned Gentleman's legal words—that when the parties to the marriage have agreed in writing that their marriage shall be a lifelong union, dissoluble only by death a divorce shall not be granted, but that in certain circumstances they could be granted a decree of judicial separation.
One of the interesting and curious things about the Clause is that the supporters and opponents alike are using the same arguments to arrive at their different conclusions. The hon. Member for Oldham, West argued like this: the Clause will introduce two kinds of marriage. This would be an excellent

thing. Therefore, it should be added to the Bill. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), who is the promoter of the Bill, argued like this: the Clause will introduce two kinds of marriage. This would be a disastrous thing. Therefore, it should be kept out of the Bill. This is all very disconcerting to a simple soul like me.
But there are other curious features about the Bill. Persons who normally share the same viewpoint have opposite views about the effects of the Clause. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) said:
The ovehwhelming majority of people would find the Clause eminently reasonable.".—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 9th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 932.]
The overwhelming majority of the people? I am not so sure about that. Another hon. Member a week previously had said:
…I have misgivings about what the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) has said.
Later he said:
Should such a Clause…be enshrined in our law?…I doubt it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1839–40.]
Who was the hon. Gentleman who made the second statement? He was none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). Here we have a Clause designed to keep the spouses together and already it is driving loving brothers apart. It is a most peculiar Clause.
What is really behind it? Its mover said that there will be an elite class of married people, the sort of married people who have not only gone through a marriage ceremony but have also entered into this little agreement so that they can tell their friends, "We belong to this rather better class of married people, the sort of married people who regard marriage as a serious, life-long business, not a temporary partnership that one can enter into every few years."
I do not like this very much. It sounds very much like the prayer of the Pharisee who gave thanks that he was not as bad as other men. If this was all that there was behind the Clause it would not be worth considering. But there are other reasons behind it. One was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). He said that


we must address our minds to whether it was possible to distinguish between those people who wish to hold on to their marriage for religious reasons, and those who have not the same feelings and are perhaps holding on for wholly irreligious reasons".
That would be a better reason for moving the new Clause than that mentioned. I do not think I would be in order in discussing that aspect of it on this new Clause, because in a later Amendment which has some sort of religious aspect to it I hope, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a word or two. There could be another reason behind the new Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) is very interested in contracts and so am I. Marriage is a contract. In the opinion of most people in this country it is a purely civil contract. It is a contract which, over the years, has grown less and less binding and if this Bill becomes law it will be less binding than ever. The contract will well-nigh have disappeared altogether. Until now a contract has been held to be binding when both parties to it fulfilled the conditions and observed the terms of it. Only when one party refused to fulfil his or her obligations had the other party the right to seek to terminate the contract. Under this Bill all that would be changed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks more closely to the new Clause and not discuss the Bill in general.

Mr. Delargy: I was trying not to discuss the Bill in general. I was trying to find out the reason for introducing this new Clause. One reason is that the people who support it say that this invalidity of contract is wrong, and I agree. They think that we must do something, however small, covering some people, however few, who wish to keep the contract going. I understand that, I have sympathy with these people. I do not think that this is the way to do it. I cannot see that writing this little marriage contract between themselves will make the contract any more binding.
Because all the reasons adduced as to why we should have this new Clause are invalid I say, with some reluctance,

that I cannot support it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones). I suppose that I will agree with him less and less as the night wears on.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. David Waddington: Being absent from home on a Friday is hardly likely to enhance my own matrimonial prospects. It would be a curious comment on the antics of the Government tonight if the divorce lists were swollen during the next few months by the names of Members of this House. Strange as it may seem to certain hon. Members opposite, many people are greatly alarmed at the low standards of behaviour today and the growth of what people believe to be an unduly permissive society. Such people may be powerless to do anything about these trends except to say, "We at least will try to live by higher standards than those now prevailing. Of course, we may fail but we shall try our best, and in order to try to ensure that we will not fall by the wayside, we are prepared to say now that we will never ask for an easy way out and will never go to court and ask for a divorce."
If people want to say that, why on earth should they not be allowed to do so? That is my interpretation of the purpose of the Clause and why I support it. I cannot see how, by acceptance of the new Clause, the interests of the individual would be prejudiced in any way.
Let us consider the situation of the deserted wife or the wife compelled to leave the home because of the cruelty of the husband. She, under the terms of the new Clause, would be able to get a decree of judicial separation and, simply because her husband would not be able to marry again and to that extent would be less likely to start another family, she and her family would be more secure than they will be if the Bill is passed unamended.
The sponsors talk much about the social consequences and the necessity of these changes. Even if it is true that the husband may fall by the wayside and live in sin, and that there may be children who, as a result of the tightening up of the law, would not be legitimated as a result of a subsequent marriage, far too much emphasis in these debates has


been placed on the supposed sufferings of the children of illicit unions and too little on the rights of the legitimate children. This is the old case of bad cases making bad law and we should pay more attention to the interests of the children of the family, who have a vested interest in the marriage not breaking up—including a financial interest—and in their father not starting another family.
In any event, the right way to look after illegitimate children is to remove some of the disabilities under which they suffer and this is being done in other legislation before Parliament. I am thinking particularly of the Family Law Reform Bill, shortly to come back for Report stage.

Mr. Alec Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How is what the hon. Gentleman is saying linked to the new Clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) is making one or two incidental references to other Bills, but he is in order.

Mr. Waddington: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not think that I was departing from the new Clause. I am opposed to the Bill in principle and least of all do I like the provision which enables a husband to put aside his wife after five years even if she is entirely innocent, and if the sponsors of the Bill had been less intransigent and had been more willing to listen to other people's arguments and had abandoned that part of the Bill over which controversy has raged—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not stray as wide as he is now doing.

Mr. Waddington: I realise that, Sir, and I will quickly come to a conclusion.
I heartily commend the new Clause. Those who feel that we have gone too far by making divorce easy are entitled to say that we should accept some discipline. They are entitled to say that one enters into a union in the belief that it must be a lifelong union and in the realisation that, if a marriage is unhappy, they should not go to the courts to ask for the marriage to be dissolved. They should be allowed to enter into a contract if they wish to do so.

Mr. Leo Abse: Although in the heat of debate hon. Members may make attributions to each other of sinister motives, I believe that all of us engaged in the debate, including the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington)—a debate which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had to endure for nearly three hours—have one common aim. We all wish to enhance the institution of marriage, encourage family stability, and protect those likely to suffer as a consequence of marriage breakdown.
Whatever may be the good intentions of those supporting the Bill, the Clause in no way buttresses any of these objectives. On the contrary, the Clause would undermine it. When a marriage ceremony takes place the rôle of the legislature should be to create a marriage law which adds to, rather than detracts from, the social pressure upon the celebrants to understand the permanence of the relationship.
It would be cynical for the House to shape a second-class ceremony, as would result from this Clause. The Clause would bring into effect a ceremony deliberately designed to enable brides and bridegrooms, at the very commencement of a marriage, to opt out of any permanent commitment. Such a concept is shockingly anti-romantic.
It may be that the iron has entered into the souls of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have proposed the Clause. They may have lingered too long in the corridors of the divorce courts. The story does not always end by living happily ever after, but surely it is good and healthy. That is what we want to believe and to hope. To accept without demur—indeed the Clause would deliberately institutionalise—the celebration of marriages declared publicly to belong to a temporary character, as an idea coming from the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), is far too avant-garde for me, even if such new-fangled ideas appeal to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black).
Nor can I accept a Clause which could result in considerable inhumanity to deceived women. Should a woman who has married an irresponsible husband, who lightly signs a piece of paper making his marriage irrevocable, be for ever compelled, at his option, to be bound to


his debauchery and cruelty? Again, should a woman, whose drunken husband is brutal to her children as well as to her, because of a piece of paper signed by him some years before, not have the opportunity, unless the brute so wished, to make a new life with a new husband and a new father for her children?
The hon. Ladies the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will forfeit any claim to be champions of women's rights if they persist

in their support of the Clause. They have not really thought through the Clause. After three hours of debate, I trust that the House will now come to a conclusion.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 58.

Division No. 253.]
AYES
[1.24 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamling, William
Norwood, Christopher


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Archer, Peter
Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric


Ashley, Jack
Hattersley, Roy
Oram, Albert E.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hay, John
Orbach, Maurice


Astor, John
Hobden, Dennis
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Awdry, Daniel
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barnes, Michael
Hornby, Richard
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Joel
Horner, John
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Howie, W.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Hunt, John
Rees, Merlyn


Boston, Terence
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Richard, Ivor


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brooks, Edwin
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roebuck, Roy


Cant, R. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rowlands, E.


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Sheldon, Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Judd, Frank
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crouch, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Dewar, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Dickens, James
Luard, Evan
Spriggs, Leslie


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Tapsell, Peter


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Emery, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Ennals, David




Fernyhough, E.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fisher, Nigel
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mikardo, Ian
Whitaker, Ben


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Winnick, David


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Christopher Price.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Clegg, Walter
Grant-Ferris, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, F. V.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Biffen, John
Delargy, Hugh
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Black, Sir Cyril
Farr, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fortescue, Tim
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body, Richard
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Goodhew, Victor
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel




Hiley, Joseph
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hill, J. E. B.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tilney, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Waddington, David


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woof, Robert


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wright, Esmond


Lee, John (Reading)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Longden, Gilbert
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Peter Kirk and


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. John Biggs-Davison.


Maddan, Martin
Small, William

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Clause be read a Second—

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must put the Question first.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 149.

Division No. 254.]
AYES
[1.34 a.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Biffen, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Tilney, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Waddington, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Ward, Dame Irene


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Woof, Robert


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wright, Esmond


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Peter Kirk and


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. John Biggs-Davison.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Russell, Sir Ronald





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fernyhough, E.
Kimball, Marcus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fisher, Nigel
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
Lipton, Marcus


Astor, John
Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles


Atkinson, Normar (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Luard, Evan


Awdry, Daniel
Freeson, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Garrett, W. E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacDermot, Niall


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Goodhart, Philip
Macdonald, A. H.


Bidwell, Sydney
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackie, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert


Body, Richard
Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boston, Terence
Haseldine, Norman
Mayhew, Christopher


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John


Brooks, Edwin
Hay, John
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)

Millan, Bruce


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hiley, Joseph
Molloy, William


Cant, R. B.
Hobden, Dennis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Clegg, Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Concannon, J. D.
Hooley, Frank
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Albert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Horner, John
Newens, Stan


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Norwood, Christopher


Crouch, David
Howie, W.
Oakes, Gordon



Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Hunt, John
Oram, Atbert E.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.


Dunnett, Jack
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Palmer, Arthur


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Ellis, John
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Emery, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


English, Michael
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)




Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Roebuck, Roy
Skeffington, Arthur
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Rowlands, E.
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David (Consett)


Scott, Nicholas
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitaker, Ben


Sheldon, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tapsell, Peter
Winnick, David


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Taverne, Dick



Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


Silverman, Julius
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Christopher Price.


Silvester, Frederick
Vickers, Dame Joan

Clause 1

BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE TO BE SOLE GROUND FOR DIVORCE

Mr. Bruce Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 1, line 7, after first 'marriage', insert 'solemnised after that date'.
The Amendment will prevent the Bill from having retrospective effect. As it stands, the law of divorce would be altered from the date of commencement of the Bill and would therefore affect every married person, even if he were married 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Most of us deplore retrospective legislation, except in the rare cases where it is only for the citizen's benefit. In this case, that cannot be said. Many people may be adversely affected by the Bill who were married long before the Bill was thought of, and they should be protected.
The aspect of the Bill which those who oppose it oppose most strongly is that it introduces into our law for the first time compulsory divorce, which should not be imposed upon people who got married when there was no such thing.
1.45 a.m.
If Parliament passes this Bill the law of this land in future will be that a husband can desert his wife, abandon his children, and, five years later, force a divorce upon his spouse; and a wife will be able so to treat her husband and children. If people, onwards from the date on which this Bill is passed, get married understanding that to be the law—well and good; they get married knowing the risks which they incur. When a young girl accepts the proposal of her fiance she will know that when she is married and has become saddled with two or three children her husband can leave her, and go off with another woman, and force a divorce upon her, although she has done nothing wrong. If she gets married knowing that, then perhaps she will not be able to complain. At least, she will have gone into marriage with

her eyes open. Likewise, when a man gets married in future he will know that, though he spends his earnings on providing a home for his wife and their children, the law will permit his wife at any time to go off, leave him, and, a few years later, force a divorce upon him. But at least from the date this Bill is passed he will know, and can go into marriage with his eyes open.
I am concerned about the people who are already married, and were married 10, 20 or 30 years ago perhaps, and were married when the law of this land regarded marriage as a solemn institution, dissoluble only when one party or the other behaved in such a way as to make it impossible for the marriage to continue. Now that is not to be the law any longer, and I want to protect those people who entered into marriage believing it to be a lifelong institution for them, unless they themselves committed a grievous wrong.
If the law is to be changed, let it be changed, by all means, for the future for people who enter into marriage knowing that the law has been changed and knowing what they are taking on, but it would be, in my submission, utterly wrong for this House to impose, upon people who entered into a contract years ago, in the belief that the law gave them protection, a law which no longer gives them such protection.
A lot has been said in this House at various times about retrospective legislation. Sometimes, I know, retrospective legislation can be excused, but in this case it cannot. How can we possibly justify a situation where a husband who has left his wife, who has done no wrong, can divorce her against her will, depriving her not only of the status of wife, but also of her right to widow's pension, also her right to live in the matrimonial home, also her right to a reasonable share of the family income? How can Parliament put a wife into that position, when she entered into marriage believing


the law of the land to be such that she could never be deprived of those rights?
I do not know what is to happen to marriage in the future. I begin to think it an institution hardly worth bothering with in future, but people who are already married entered into marriage when it was an institution which they regarded as a serious one and a solemn one, and for them it would be utterly wrong, in my submission, to alter the law retrospectively so as to affect them adversely.
I confine myself to this point of retrospective legislation. We ought not to legislate in such a way as adversely to affect people who entered into contracts without any realisation that the law would be changed to their disadvantage.

Dr. Hugh Gray: The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) in his usually lucid way has spelled out very clearly the purpose of the Amendment. It is to deprive the most deserving people of the possibility of getting a divorce. The new legislation lays down irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the basic reason for a divorce, with certain guidelines indicating when it has happened. The hon. and learned Member mentioned people who had been married for 30, 40 and 50 years and who had been separated for the whole of that time.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: I did not say that.

Dr. Gray: I understood the hon. and learned Member to say that many people had been married for that length of time and that their marriages had irretrievably broken down.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: I referred to people who had been married 10, 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years ago, but I said nothing about their marriages having broken down. My complaint is that this Measure applies to people who have been married all that time and whose marriages have not broken down. They may break down in future. But the point is that they married when the law was quite different from that proposed in the Bill.

Dr. Gray: But if the marriages have not broken down, then even if the couples have been married for all that time, perhaps for 50 years, under the new legislation they will have to be separated for five years before a divorce can be demanded.
The hon. and learned Member complained of this as retrospective legislation. It will come to the aid of those whose marriages have been broken down for 10, 30, 40 and even 50 years and who have been forced for the whole of that time to live, perhaps with another life partner, with whom they have lived as married couples, building up a family, without the possibility of legitimising the new situation. The Amendment would remove that possibility from this category of people who, I suggest, are the most deserving of aid. I hope that it will be rejected by as large a majority as that which rejected the last Amendment.

Mr. Richard Wood: We have to face the fact that the effect of the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) would be to create one divorce law for marriages which were contracted in the first seven decades of this century and another for those contracted in the 1970s and thereafter. I assume that there are not many marriages in existence—there may be some—which were contracted in the 19th century. I make the even stronger assumption that a husband and wife who entered into marriage in the 1880s or 1890s will not now be petitioning for divorce either under the present law or under the proposed new provisions.
On the other hand, in the view of some of us, the sponsors of the Bill are proposing one divorce law for the rich and another for the not-so-rich, and I assume that they will not look with favour on the Amendment. They will no doubt tell us in shocked tones that it would be intolerable for marriages contracted after 1969 or 1970 to be subject to one law while those contracted earlier were subject to another law.
However, if they are honest—I have every reason to believe that they are—they will admit that the difference between the present law and the new one will be much less than a great many hon. Members imagine. For example, if a husband in the 1970s or subsequently commits adultery, beats his wife or deserts her, she will be able to petition for divorce, whether the marriage was contracted before or after the passage of the Bill, in exactly the same way as she can now.
For existing marriages, such wives would have to prove, not that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, but that the husband had committed some recognised matrimonial offence. But as the proof of marriage breakdown in any of these three cases is still to be the commission of the present matrimonial offence, it seems that this will make little recognisable difference.
The first difference it will make is that husbands and wives who got married before the passage of the Bill will not openly be able to agree together that their marriages should be brought to an end. This is the first proposal of change that the Bill makes. I doubt whether this, in itself, will constitute any real hardship.
No doubt the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) will point out that some husbands and wives would be driven into the subterfuge of arranged adultery or bogus cruelty, but it seems more likely that most husbands and wives who might otherwise plan to take advantage of Clause 2(1)(d) would, instead, agree to live apart for three years, at the end of which one of them, under the provisions which exist now, would be able to divorce the other.
In any event, there would be no question of the slightest breach of faith, because couples who marry under the existing law do so on the understanding that their marriages could be brought to an end only if one commits an offence of such gravity as to justify the other partner in asking for the marriage to be dissolved.
This principle of the understood basis of existing marriages is obviously the more important in relation to the final proposal in Clause 2, which would make it possible for a marriage contracted under one set of rules to be set aside under another set of rules which are wholly different.
We can all think of examples of where Parliament has changed the rules in the middle of the game and where the effect has been to destroy the bona fide arrangements which were made between two or more people on the basis of the law that existed when the arrangements were made. For example, in the sphere of taxation the Chancellor of the

Exchequer can, and frequently does, change the law with the effect that many men and women are employed a good deal less profitably than they might have been in modifying their previous arrangements to fit in with the Chancellor's new rules.
But when the Chancellor's proposals, or the proposals of any Minister or private hon. Member, have a retrospective effect, there is generally a loud protest, not only in Parliament but elsewhere, and not confined to the political opponents of the Minister or hon. Member involved, for restrospective legislation has very few friends indeed. However much we may dislike—and some of us do very much—the provisions of Clause 2(1)(e), it is in its retrospective effect that this part of the Bill is most offensive.
2.0 a.m.
If that proposal in the Bill were, as the Amendment would make it, that anyone married after the Bill becomes law would be married on the basis that the marriage could be brought to an end against the will of one partner, the hundreds of thousands of couples who are married at present would know exactly where they stand. They would know that they had married before the Bill became law, on the understanding that so long as they behaved themselves and did not ask for dissolution, only death could bring the marriage to an end. On the other hand, couples who marry subsequently would marry on a new basis and would also know where they were.
Therefore, although I find the whole principle of compulsory divorce not only undesirable but very dangerous, at least acceptance of the Amendment would absolve the sponsors from the charge that they had destroyed the basis and that a man and woman who honestly understood that they were married felt cheated of the security to which I believe they have every right.

Mr. John Lee: An one who has many reservations about this Bill, I think the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) has allowed his enthusiasm to run away with him in this instance. If he seriously reflects on what would happen if this Amendment were carried he will see that it would be as much a wrecking exercise as one could imagine.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) was quite right in pointing out that much of the provisions as to ideas of breakdown of marriage defined in the Bill, except for Clause 2(1)(e) are a restatement in modern and more simple terms of existing law. Therefore, if we were to introduce this provision it would be a nonsense in one sense and a superfluous nonsense. I find myself in some agreement with the provision, however, and I only wish that instead of putting the Amendment to line 7 on page 1 the hon. and learned Member had proposed a similar Amendment to the first line on page 2. This would have the effect of protecting the participants of existing marriages from having this concept of unilateral repudiation thrust upon them unsolicited and in circumstances in which they could never have contemplated anything of the kind was likely to come into existence.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: All I am asking is that the provisions of the Bill should apply only to marriages taking place after the commencement of the Act. The existing law would still apply to marriages which have already taken place. I agree with the hon. Member that as far as concerns (a), (b) and (c) there is very little change. Those people can still get divorce under existing law. It is against (e) that my Amendment is aimed.

Mr. Lee: I gathered that from the tenor of the speech of the hon. and learned Member, but it would have been more satisfactory if he had framed his Amendment in a way directed specifically and unambiguously at the most contentious part of the Bill, the part because of which I shall not find myself in the Aye Lobby on Third Reading. I take issue with the hon. and learned Member over paragraph (d). It is a thousand pities that this provision has not found its way into a separate Bill. This is the good part of the Bill because it would have the effect of reducing the amount of perjury which takes place in the divorce courts as well as involving a great deal of hypocrisy. One of the reasons why I was unable to vote either way on Second Reading was my conflict of applauding Clause 2(1)(d), on the one hand, and deploring Clause 2(1)(e), on the other.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: A Bill has been introduced which simply adds an extra

ground, namely, divorce by consent after a period of separation, to the existing grounds for divorce.

Mr. Lee: I am pleased to hear that. Such a Bill will have my support and, no doubt, the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All the strictures passed by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) on Clause 2(1)(e) need to be reinforced. The paragraph introduces the principle of unilateral repudiation of contract. It stipulates far too short a period of separation—five years, compared with the seven years before death can be presumed under probate law. It is a great pity that this Amendment is not in such a form as would apply to that paragraph. For that reason, although I am unable to support the Amendment I shall be unable to vote against it.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I oppose the Amendment. My arguments are somewhat similar to those which have been deployed by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee). The Amendment is inspired by a dislike, which I share, of Clause 2(1)(e). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) is trying to make the Bill better from his point of view. There is a chance that the Bill will become law, and it would be madness to amend it in a way which would lead to complication because of a dislike of Clause 2(1)(e). If there are to be different bases for divorce—one before the Bill and one after the Bill—the procedure would be very complicated. I am one of those practising in this field who want to see the procedure simplified rather than complicated.
I do not think that it is valid to say that the present law should apply to marriages already subsisting and that the provisions of the Bill should govern marriages solemnised subsequent to its coming into operation. Times change. Manners change. People's outlook changes towards all sorts of relationships. I do not see why this principle should not be applied to marriage, as to many other propositions.
I was almost moved to vote for the Amendment by the attitude of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray). He approached the matter with passion. I am getting a little tired tonight of one or


two hon. Members who, because they support Clause 2(1)(e), take the view that people who oppose it are not equally compassionate and concerned.

Dr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman does me an injustice. I entirely respect other people's values, their compassion, and their passion. I do not suggest that I have anything to offer that every other hon. Member cannot offer.

Mr. Clegg: I am pleased to hear that. That was not the impression I had when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. It is true that hardships are suffered by people who have left their partners and gone to live with other people. At least they went with their eyes open knowing what the consequences would be. People who got married had no choice as to the terms under which they got married and the law as it then was. I would be more content with the hon. Gentleman's views if I were more satisfied about the financial arrangements which are to be made, but until we get another Bill we shall not know what they are. Whilst, however, I am discontented with Clause 2(1)(e), I do not consider that a sufficient reason for arguing that we should have two bases for divorce.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am no great enthusiast for the Bill, as those who heard my speech on Second Reading when it was proposed in the last Session will realise. I also have considerable reservations about Clause 2(1)(e), which has given rise to a great deal of discussion. I think, however, that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campell) is wrong in principle.
Marriage is a contract giving rise to status. All laws about the dissolution of marriage are laws about the status and not about the contract. What is absolutely intolerable is for a State to introduce a law about the status which creates not one status, but two or three statuses. If all my hon. and learned Friend's Amendments had been passed, we would have had not two or three, but four or five, statuses, about which the state of the law would have been different in each case.
It is said by those who support the Amendment that the law as it is now

proposed is retrospective. That is not strictly true. If we legislate about a status, it is true that we alter the character of the status every time we legislate it as from the moment the Act of Parliament is passed, but that does not necessarily make the law retrospective in its objectionable sense.
I seldom find myself in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), but I am sorry to say that I am in disagreement with him at this point of the argument. Every piece of legislation about matrimonial status has been retrospective in the sense in which my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend object to it.
When the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, which was the first divorce law, was passed, it was true to say at that time that everybody who had been married before 1857 knew that they would be married unless a Private Act of Parliament was passed, whether they behaved themselves or not. Therefore, those spouses who committed adultery must have been very disappointed when the Act was passed.
Every man who was married before 1923, but not every woman married before 1923, knew that he had to be cruel as well as commit adultery before he could be divorced. Therefore, he must have been very disappointed if he committed adultery without beating his wife, because he would then be divorced on quite different terms from those on which he was married. Everybody who was married before 1937 knew that if he became incurably insane during the course of his marriage, he could not be divorced. Therefore, those who became incurably insane in the course of marriages contracted before 1937 must have been very disappointed when they found that their marriages were brought to an end.
It is inherent in the law of divorce that every time we pass a law about the status of marriage, it is in that sense retrospective. If, however, we consider the alternative, it is so ludicrous and so unacceptable that it seems to me to be impossible that anyone sould seriously suppose it.
If it is thought, as many of us think—and, clearly, those who support the Amendment all think—that there are


objections to Clause 2(1)(e) for one reason or another, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), am more concerned about the financial provisions than the status. If, however, it is thought that there is something intolerably objectionable about the idea of an innocent party being divorced, it must be objectionable whether or not the marriage was contracted in 1968 or 1971. It is no good my hon. and learned Friend saying, "Well and good. So be it. They know what they are in for", because, when we have altered the status, they cannot be in for anything else.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is no use talking about status and saying that retrospective legislation is not so important when it affects status as when it affects contract when the alteration of the status depends upon the grounds for divorce? By altering the grounds for divorce, we give the courts power to alter the status.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend is not doing me justice. What I am saying is that it is inherent in the alteration of the law regarding dissolution of marriage that one gives the courts this power. Whenever we do it—and we have done it three times in my lifetime—we alter the character of the status. At no time till the present has anyone said that this is so intolerable because it is inherently retrospective that it should operate only from the date on which the Act commences, or in respect only of those marriages which are not contracted out, or in respect only of marriages contracted out after a certain date.
Either the status ought to be on certain terms, in which case one ought not to do it for anyone otherwise than in accordance with those terms, or it ought not, in which case one ought not to legislate so that it is. There is no greater expert on the law of divorce than my hon. and learned Friend. He spends all his time moving from the Divorce Registry to the Divorce Court, putting asunder those God has joined together. He does practically nothing else. The trouble is that he is so obsessed with divorce that he has not really thought through the institution of marriage.
What is intolerable is that we should have two kinds of marriage as a result of what we are doing tonight. I said earlier that I thought it was rotten to have to do this in the middle of the night, and all that has happened on the present Amendment has borne that out. But the Amendment is wrong in principle. No one can support it. That is what I wanted to say.

Mr. Simon Mahon: No one listens to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) with more avid attention than I on most occasions, but I must say that I found his levity a little out of taste. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am used to my hon. Friend's groans, and I am quite prepared to take them. Anyone who has stood at the Mersey dock gates as often as I have knows that they amount to nothing at all.
I do not like double standards. I speak here—I hope that this does not evoke another groan—of the sacrament of marriage as well as of the contract of marriage, and I know that a lot of people in this country would agree with me. Let the supporters of the Bill, as we say in Liverpool, test the gear. That is an old-fashioned maritime phrase. Let them try the Bill, out, let them test the gear of this Clause before the British public. They will find that great numbers believe as the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) believes. I remind the House that my brother and I strove valiantly to keep him out of the House, but tonight I am very pleased to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He likes the double standard in marriage no more than I or anyone else. I hope to God there are no young people in the Gallery listening to the pessimism of the House tonight. They would do far better to go away and get married. It is no wonder that people these days take no notice of Parliament when they have to listen to that sort of thing on an important subject like marriage.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) talked about attitudes and comparisons. He said that the world is changing, that habits, fashion and everything else are changing. What would he compare from the point of view of change with the status of a married woman? What had he in mind when he


spoke about the changing status and the changing fashion?
I know nothing about law and nothing about divorce, but I know a good deal about marriage. I have lived in a working-class area all my life, and I did everything I could to keep marriages together by building homes and so on. What did the hon. Gentleman have in mind?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Amendment, which is concerned with the date.

Mr. Mahon: When one gets into an argument of this kind it appears to be a narrow Amendment, but it is quite important. I am trying to bring back some of the importance into it. My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray), for whom I have the highest regard, talked about the most deserving people when he talked about the new Clause. Why are the most deserving people those who have had two bites at the cherry? Why should the woman left with a family give way—the woman who does not want to be divorced and who was married properly and thought at the time that it was for life? Why should she give way when the husband—and always it is a drunken husband; I wonder that it is not always a drunken Irishman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is getting into a wider debate than the Amendment allows. It is really concerned with whether the Bill applies after the date of solemnisation of the marriage.

Mr. Mahon: There has been a change in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Other hon. Members were allowed to go much wider than I am being allowed to go. I am only repeating what was allowed in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can only allow what the Amendment allows.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of Order. In this respect the Amendment is very far-reaching. Although it changes the application of the Clause to those who are married before or after a certain date, it affects all the causes of divorce shown in the Bill. To be able to show the effect of this I think that one must be

allowed to mention some examples of the kind the hon. Gentleman has given.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must relate what he is saying to the Amendment.

Mr. Mahon: I am trying my best to do that. But I will not be out of order when I say that, retrospection or no retrospection, anything that happens in the Bill affects the most important people that come in any marriage—the children. That is why I tried to evoke so much sympathy. I know that there are all sorts of difficulties on all sides of marriage. It is not a perfect state; we are not living in a perfect world. These things must happen, and Parliament must do its best to offset the difficulties that arise from time to time.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone asked what financial provisions would be made if the Amendment was or was not carried. I asked for an answer earlier from the Government. We will leave thousands of children in a very difficult financial position.

Mr. William Molloy: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Mahon: My hon. Friend asks how do I know. Once anyone disturbs a marriage the children are the first victims. The child is the product of the marriage and is entitled to the care and succour of both parents. It will not get this if this sort of thing pervades society. Someone asked: what will happen to marriage? Marriage in future will have more permutations than the football pools. Once we depart from the absolute standard, "till death us do part," we go on and on and we have to change the law continually to suit the fashions we have been talking about, because the fashions of tomorrow will not be the fashions of today.
Children need looking after. I am not evoking any response from my Front Bench, but this is not an unusual position for me to be in. They told the House, from the highest possible level, that they would make an announcement to clarify the financial position if certain things happened to the Bill. We have to make up our minds about this very serious, although small, Amendment. If we have irretrievable breakdown as the only ground, why should it not be retrospective, because we have to protect those


who believed at the time that they were right, and who have the children to support.

Mr. Molloy: My hon. Friend mentioned his activities in a working-class area of Liverpool. Does he really believe that the ordinary young chap and girl in love go out courting with a contract tucked under their arm, and the law of the land with them, before they come to any arrangement to marry?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Molloy: My hon. Friend seems to assume that there already exist thousands of children belonging to families, who, the moment this Bill becomes law, will seek divorces. It is possible that such homes at this moment, with such children, are not particularly happy ones.

Mr. Mahon: I am an authority on the boys and girls in Liverpool. We all have our ideas about what marriage is for and most of them get married in the proper way, in a rather old-fashioned way, and, thank God, they court in an old-fashioned way as well. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) wish to intervene? The hon. Member for Pontypool refused to give way and maybe I should follow his example. I was trying to give way, but by doing so I have lost my trend of thought. I am doing my best to point out that my sympathies are with the people who have been married before, and this Bill will affect them tremendously. If we do not get retrospection thousands of people will be divorced under the new legislation and it will affect thousands of children.
2.30 a.m.
I have a good idea that we may feel rather ashamed of ourselves within 12 months of passing the Bill, just as we are ashamed of ourselves over the Abortion Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what I feel. Hon. Members can make their own speeches. We do not like a double standard but the Amendment is at least trying to protect some people from the vicissitudes of the whole issue. We shall have to go on doing this in the years to come until fashions change.
If we refuse to give these people protection, what will happen to the nation? If we do not do this to protect at least some of the people, nice people who have made an honest contract, from the effects of the Bill, what will happen to our country? We talk of the individual but what is to happen to the country? Britain was strong because it had strong family life. As we weaken family life, so we will weaken the country—and we shall regret it.

Dame Irene Ward: I support the Amendment, although I can see the arguments against it. It is difficult to make up one's mind on this issue because we are still waiting for the results of the undertaking given by the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor to the sponsors of the Bill in a letter when it was going through Committee. We still do not know what he intends to do to provide for all the difficult cases which are going to arise.
I am convinced from my correspondence that, throughout the country, many thousands of men and women, particularly women, are in a state of anxiety as to what their position may be if the Bill becomes law and it is tremendously important from the point of view of humanity to have a statement from the Lord Chancellor, through a Minister here, to help us make up our minds on this Amendment.
The Lord Chancellor is a very distinguished lawyer and it is not right that he should have intervened in the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, by letter, and that we should still, when we have reached Report stage, be ignorant about what he is going to do. I am astounded and horrified and the Amendment gives us the opportunity to ask the sponsors of the Bill or the legal luminaries of the Government what they intend to do. It is alarming for the British constitution if we can have an intervention by letter by the Lord Chancellor during the Committee stage of a Bill in this House and still have no indication when it reaches Report stage as to how he is going to implement his pledge.
It is important to pass the Amendment. If we then receive a satisfactory assurance from the Lord Chancellor to give relief in the many difficult cases to which


reference has been made in this debate, then to meet the difficulty of a double standard it would be possible to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill, or something of that nature, to get back to a single standard. We should then have some knowledge of the sort of protection to be given to people involved.
It is intolerable that we should discuss this Amendment without any intervention by the Lord Chancellor or by those who presumably are interested in passing a Bill which is fair and legally sound. I do not like a situation in which the House knows nothing more than that such a pledge is supposed to have been given.
Although I appreciate that there are arguments for and against the Amendment, I am certain that when the general public get to hear of this debate there will be many anxious hearts. The majority of people will say that they are surprised that the House should allow this Bill to go through on Report without the House being informed of the Lord Chancellor's intentions. I believe that the Lord Chancellor has behaved abominably in this matter. Therefore I support the Amendment.

Mr. Ivor Richard: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was right to say that this Amendment is totally impossible. I would go one stage further and say that I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) must know that it is totally impossible.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: Is the hon. Member really suggesting that I have moved what I believe to be an impossible Amendment?

Mr. Richard: I am always reluctant to delve into the motives of those who make speeches in this House, but the hon. and learned Member is a distinguished practitioner in the divorce courts. Indeed, on one or two occasions I have had the privilege of appearing in cases against him. He must know that this is not retrospective legislation. He must also know that it would be totally unreasonable to create two different types of marriage. As the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said, any piece of legislation affecting the status of marriage has always been retrospective.
It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) supported the Amendment on different grounds, both of which were equally fallacious. The hon. and learned Gentleman took an excessively contractual view of marriage. He said that he did not like the Bill, but that if it was made retrospective, in the sense in which he used the word, those who hereafter marry will go into it with their eyes open and will know what they are doing. When they go to the altar and vows are exchanged they will know that they are not getting as good a marriage as they would have got if the Bill had not been passed.
People do not just get married with that in mind. I do not know of any couple who, before they entered into marriage, sat down quite solemnly and coldly and said to themselves, "What are the precise contractual obligations we are undertaking by getting married?" What usually happens is that a man and woman meet, they fall in love with each other, they decide that they want to live together and produce children and bring up those children together, and they obviously hope, when they get married, that that marriage will subsist for the rest of their lives.
The whole concept that by including a date upon which the Bill should take effect, thereby making the provisions of marriage pre the Bill different from marriage post the Bill, will have any effect on the number of marriages or thereby increase the sanctity of marriages that have taken place is a fallacy. It is as much a fallacy as the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, because underlying everything that he said is the concept that the tighter the law on divorce and the more difficult it is for people to get divorced, the stronger the marriage, the better the children are treated, and the less matrimonial offences are committed. My hon. Friend suggested that if only the law were tight enough, the marriage bond itself would be tighter. I challenge that assumption.
In countries where there are tight divorce laws, by definition there are not many divorces. In Italy, for example, where I believe that until recently it was impossible to get a divorce under Italian


law, there are fewer divorces than in England. I would, however, question the next stage of my hon. Friend's argument, which is that the marriage bond—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the Amendment, which is concerned with a certain date.

Mr. Richard: It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend's argument without trying to answer this point. This was the argument put forward by my hon. Friend in favour of the Amendment. Therefore, I trust that I may be allowed to answer the same point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I sought to bring his hon. Friend to order on more than one occasion. I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go out of order.

Mr. Richard: Perhaps I may put it this way. The object of the Amendment is to protect those who are already married from the evils of the Bill, should it be passed. Underlying that Amendment, therefore, must be the assumption that if the Bill is passed the sanctity of marriage is thereby weakened, and underlying that must be the assumption that the tighter the divorce laws the stronger the marriage bond. My point is that there is no evidence whatever that in countries—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a line which I indicated was out of order.

Mr. Richard: I hoped that by the time I had explained how it was in order I might have convinced you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was in order. It seems impossible to argue the Amendment. The whole basis of the Amendment must be the assumption that if the divorce laws are tight the sanctity of marriage is thereby strengthened. That can only be the purpose of the Amendment and I must be entitled to question that assumption.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment is concerned with whether the Bill will apply to marriages solemnised after a certain date; not to other matters.

Mr. Richard: I will do my best to keep within the bounds of order. If an Amendment is proposed this evening on the lines of that proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, namely, that two different laws shall apply to marriages, depending whether they were solemnised before or after the passing of the Bill, in that situation the assumption cannot be made that because the law is tighter the marriage is stronger.
I conclude by asking my hon. Friend to examine not merely the divorce statistics—which I know he does because he takes a deep interest in these matters—but the separation statistics, the delinquency figures, the figures for the number of children who are abandoned, at what age, and for what reason, and how children are looked after in countries where the divorce laws are very much tighter than even under the somewhat restrictive proposals of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. John Hall: I stayed on in the House after 10 o'clock tonight really with the intention of taking part in the debate on the Motion, which was brought to an abrupt end by the Chief Whip. I was interested mostly in the principle involved in the Government's action in taking the steps they did to make it possible for us to debate this Bill at this hour of the morning.
I had not intended to do more than listen to the remainder of the debate, until I heard the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell). I gathered from the speeches which followed that it was not receiving much popular support. When I heard the extremely rumbustious speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) I was almost stung to my feet in its defence. I need not have bothered, because the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) made an adequate defence of the Amendment in a rather moving speech.
I wish I could have gone on to say that I should be prepared to support the Amendment. I yield to no one in my dislike of what is called retrospective legislation, although that has generally been confined to legislation in the financial field. I agree, even if reluctantly, with the speeches which have been made


pointing out that this is not really retrospective legislation in the proper sense. If it were, it would apply to all other Acts which have been passed affecting divorce and matters of that kind, and therefore I find it difficult to support the Amendment, for that reason.
I sympathise with the motive behind the Amendment. Looking at the Clause—which I did for almost the first time today when my attention was directed to it—I am struck by the fact that the first part of it up to paragraph (e), does not seem to be any different from the law as it stands, with the one exception that the period for desertion is reduced from three years to two.
The paragraph which I dislike intensely, and the one which appears to have attracted the dislike of the majority of hon. Members, is paragraph (e). This is a new element in our divorce law, and I do not think that we should be under any misapprehension about this. It changes the whole basis of married life. We are doing something which will have the most far-reaching consequences. I am not saying whether they are good or bad, but they are far-reaching.
I turned up an article written by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Primate with whose words I do not always agree. In the Sunday Times as long ago as February of last year, in an article headed:
My doubts about the Divorce Bill",
he said about paragraph (e):
But for many people—and this I know from a flow of letters received ever since the proposal was included in Mr. Abse's Bill in 1963—the clause which brings the fear of greatest hardship and injustice is that which provides for divorce after five years' seperation, even against the wishes of a faithful partner.
It can be argued that it is an act of charity to allow a partner, who no longer loves one, to be free to marry a new partner…. But under the new proposal the initiative can be taken by the unfaithful spouse. This, in itself, could make intervention in a marriage more attractive to an adventurer or adventuress.
I think that is perfectly true. I would find it more difficult to oppose the Bill if this provision were not in it, but I certainly find it difficult to support the Bill with this provision.
Although I understand the purpose of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, I do not think it is possible to

have two laws existing, one covering people who were married before the passing of this Measure, and the other applying to people who were married after. It is neither logical nor desirable. Even if it is a bad law, it must apply to everybody. I would prefer that we did not have it at all, but if it is to be on the Statute Book it must apply to everybody. In fiscal legislation different circumstances apply to different taxpayers depending on the dates on which they arranged their financial affairs, but in the field of social affairs I do not think this is "on".
Therefore, much as I regret it, I shall find myself unable to support this Amendment in the Division Lobby, although I have every sympathy with its purpose.

Mr. Alec Jones: Some hon. Members have raised issues which will be discussed at some length on future Amendments. We have to concern ourselves with Amendment No. 23 which relates specifically to the date of the marriage.
One of the effects of this Amendment would be to limit the new ground on which a petition for divorce could be presented to the court—namely, the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage—to those marriages which were solemnised after the commencement of the Act. If that were all, that in itself would be some reason for rejecting it, as has been said by many hon. Members. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has left the Chamber. He suggested that the grounds for divorce based on the matrimonial offence would still be available to those who are married at the moment. But under the Bill and the Amendment as it is worded, this is not so. In Schedule 2 we are proposing to repeal the whole of Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, which would mean that there could be no divorce at all under any circumstances for those who are married at the moment, unless some—

Mr. Bruce Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously opposing the Amendment on the basis of some slight drafting difficulty?

Mr. Jones: I am not opposing it only on that ground. I consider this to be a very serious drafting error, which would leave us with no ground at all for divorce.


This is one of the reasons why we oppose this Amendment. We believe it to be wrong that the ground upon which a marriage is to be ended should be determined by the date on which the marriage was solemnised. We as sponsors of the Bill are concerned with the viability of the marriage itself, and not the date upon which the marriage took place.
Reference has been made to the effect of this Amendment on young people. It seems strange to think that young people should have to study the terms of the current divorce laws before deciding about their marriage. I never studied the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, or any other Matrimonial Causes Act before I got married. In fact, I doubt whether I knew that such Acts existed. If Parliament considers, as we hope it will, that irretrievable breakdown is a proper basis for dissolution of a marriage, as a matter of public policy this should apply to all marriages and not only to those entered into after a certain date.
I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and I was pleased that he referred to the precedent of the 1857 Act, which introduced divorce in the modern setting—and certainly not only for marriages entered into after the date of the coming into force of the Act. We heard a great deal about precedent earlier tonight, between ten and one o'clock—

Mr. Martin Maddan: So much following my right hon. and learned Friend's speech has been utterly erroneous. The three examples he quoted in no case gave the right to the guilty party to initiate proceedings. There is no comparison: lawyer after lawyer has fallen into the same trap.

Mr. Jones: Those who are sponsoring the Bill do not believe necessarily in the concept of complete innocence or guilt. We are more concerned with examining the viability of a marriage than with assessing blame. It would be a brave man or woman who could claim to have been completely innocent for the whole of his married life. I certainly could not do so.

Mr. Simon Mahon: No one wants to be over-bold about guilt or innocence. Most of us are prone to this sort of thing for the whole of our lives. But

there are innocent people and guilty people: truthful people and people who tell lies. If that is not going to be the basis of our law, we should get rid of our law—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the question of the date.

Mr. Jones: I should have been happier if you had called us to order before the question had been asked, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The pressure for divorce reform comes not merely from those who are not yet married, but from those who are already married. I do not believe that public opinion would stand for a provision which did not alleviate the plight of those, already married, whose marriages have irretrievably broken down in accordance with the Bill. We should be ignoring all the misery associated with such breakdowns if we held that concept.
I was very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray), who drew our attention to the problem of those who have been married, in name, for a long time and separated from their respectve partners for a long time, whose marriages have brought nothing but misery and hardship to the parties. These are the people whom we wish to help. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Maddan: I am very glad to be able to enlarge on the point which I made in my intervention. It is astonishing to me, whatever the basic merits of the case, that hon. and learned Members sought to refute the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) with such extraordinarily flimsy alleged analogies from the past. I am not a lawyer, but on this occasion I am a member of the jury, and, as a juryman, I will give my vote to the case deployed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West. Every speech which I have heard—for or against the Amendment—leads me to believe that that is right. They have all, more and more, convinced me.
3.0 a.m.
One of the things which seems to have been entirely forgotten and omitted from consideration by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Rhondda,


West (Mr. Alec Jones), the promoter of the Bill, when they have spoken about the spirit and the way in which people enter into marriage, is that those who have already entered into marriage—and I mention them particularly because I must keep within the terms of the Amendment—fell in love, felt they would like to have some children, and said, "Let's get married", but not irresponsibly. I have fallen in love with many; I often thought it would be nice to have a little family and set up home with them; but I did not marry them because I considered the matter as a lifelong partnership with a lifelong responsibility of fatherhood and I decided it would not be a wise course. We are told by the supporters of the Bill and the opponents of the Amendment that people do not have that sort of consideration in their minds when they enter into marriage. I think they underrate the integrity and the sense of understanding of the importance of marriage among those people who have entered into marriages.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is going wide of the Amendment, which is to exempt from the Bill marriages before the date of passing of the Bill.

Mr. Maddan: Yes. I was saying that in a large number of cases parties to marriages up to date entered into those marriages far, far more seriously than has been implied. They were not just romantic love marriages as implied by the opponents of the Amendment. We must not allow ourselves to be swept away on a sort of romantic magic carpet or by Hollywood standards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred to the increasing apprehension among people, particularly those already married, about the effects of this Bill. It may interest hon. Members to know that in the last few weeks I have received representations from over 300—I think it is getting on for 400—of my constituents against this Bill—in the last few weeks alone. Therefore, we must take it that there is very strong apprehension on the part of those whose marriages may be prejudiced by the passage of this Bill in its present form.
It may be said, "Well, if they are rocky marriages, is it worth preserving them?" That goes to the crux of the whole matter. If there is determination to maintain a marriage then it can be maintained through thick and thin—and there will be thick and thin, but if it is thought, "Well, it can easily be got out of" a wholly different attitude may begin to develop. It may after the passage of this Bill, begin to develop in the heart and mind of one partner gravely to the prejudice of the other, who, through no fault whatsoever of his or her own may find himself or herself divorced, and the children fatherless or motherless.
One hon. Member—I think it was the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—spoke about "new" fathers—as though one were discussing moving to a new house, or having a new dog or a new motor car or something of that sort. I was appalled at that reasoning from an hon. Member who is interested in psychology and sociology. Without any reservations I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: The remarks of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) indicate clearly that in discussing the Amendment we are inevitably debating a number of separate but interlocked matters.
It is clear that the motives—which are quite understandable—of those who support the Amendment are based upon strong and irrevocable opposition to the proposals of Clause 2(1)(e). I understand the apprehensions which are felt, not least because of the ambiguity which still exists, and which I certainly regret, over the future, long-term financial provisions for those who might be affected by the proposals. But a private Member is not in a position to dictate to the Government the timing of legislation other than that to which he is himself committed, and it would be wrong to imply that it is in any way the fault of the sponsors of the Bill that as yet we have not the more precise information which we all feel is sadly lacking.
But we are discussing more specifically the question raised by the Amendment whether it is desirable to have a two-tier system, one applying to those who married before 1969 or 1970 and one


applying to those who married afterwards. It is not necessarily wrong to consider the possibility of such a two-tier system. It would not automatically be wrong to have one. But such a system is bound to create many difficulties, some of which we can foresee and which have been described and some of which at this stage it is difficult to foresee.
In general, on balance, it seems to me advisable to avoid that added complexity. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) pointed to the inevitable complexity of the various status symbols which would be connected to marriage in the years ahead if we embarked on a proliferation of this type of refinement. On that score it would be unwise for the House to accept the Amendment.
A further point is involved. To some extent we have confused ourselves with the term "retrospective legislation". I have been following the debate closely, and I have heard on occasions one and the same hon. Member first say that the Clause was and then say that it was not retrospective legislation. Arguments have been flung across the Floor that it is not retrospective in the legal sense but that it is retrospective in the commonsense way in which we non-learned Members normally communicate with one another. We are in danger of getting tied up in a morass of semantics. Surely in one sense it is retrospective in that the law will apply in future to men and women who, when they embarked on their marriages, did not know that this change would be made. However, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone pointed out, if there had never been provision for this type of retrospective action, there would never have been any divorce law reform. This is a strong reason why we should not rule out this proposal which the Bill envisages simply because there is an element of retrospection involved. If we were to do that, we might create a precedent for any future reform, and I would be apprehensive about that.
We must consider the background against which we are debating this important Measure of social reform. We are all deeply concerned about any threat to the institution of marriage, but it is not good enough to say that marriage is all that it should be. At a time when

one baby out of every eight is born illegitimate, something must be wrong, particularly as there is at least some evidence to show that part of the problem is bound up with the difficulties that are caused among couples who have been separated, possibly for decades, but who have found partners with whom to establish a cohabiting relationship.
When people talk about injustice to the so-called innocent spouse they should not confuse the argument by misrepresenting the institution of marriage. Listening to some speeches, I have gained the impression that marriage is seen as an irrevocable contract. Those who say that it would be wrong in any circumstances to impose on anybody a situation in which a marriage which he or she regarded as irrevocable could be terminated should recall that for over a hundred years marriage has not been an irrevocable institution.
The matrimonial offence has been a basis on which the courts have been able to consider whether or not a marriage should be terminated. Throughout our modern industrial history it has been known that a marriage could be terminated if certain things had deteriorated to the point that the courts could dissolve it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty relating the hon. Members' remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Brooks: Listening to the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) one would imagine that a woman who may have been separated from her husband for perhaps 40 years was having something sacred destroyed in that, it is claimed, she had entered her marriage in the belief that it was irrevocable. As I have shown, marriage has not been an irrevocable institution in this country in modern times. We are now altering the conditions on which it can be deemed revocable.
We are, in discussing the Amendment, considering the most controversial and difficult part of the Bill. It is a question of balancing—it is by no means a clear-cut choice—the difficulties and even the evils. On balance, we must recognise that a marriage can break down irretrievably, and this should be reflected in our divorce law, irrespective of the date of the marriage.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Simon Mahon: (seated and covered): Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an hon. Member who pays little regard to the conduct of the debate and who from time to time successfully comes into the House—always the same person—to move the Closure? It is always accepted and has been accepted on every occasion the first time it has been put to the Chair. Some of us take the strongest possible objection to this from a person who has shown no interest in the debate from one week to another.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing out of order as far as the House is concerned.

Dame Irene Ward: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. I want to know whether the same regulation applies to your discretion in receiving the request for the Closure. Is it your discretion, or do you have to accept it whenever you are asked?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must take account of all the circumstances in relation to the Standing Order.

Dame Irene Ward: (seated and covered): Perhaps you will take account of what has just been said.

The House having divided: Ayes 131, Noes 37.

Division No. 255.]
AYES
[3.16 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Newens, Stan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Norwood, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oakes, Gordon


Ashley, Jack
Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oram, Albert E.


Astor, John
Haseldine, Norman
Orbach, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hobden, Dennis
Orme, Stanley


Awdry, Daniel
Hooley, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barnes, Michael
Hooson, Emlyn
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Joel
Hornby, Richard
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Horner, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Richard, Ivor


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, Leslie
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boston, Terence
Hunt, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowlands, E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Ryan, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skeffington, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dickens, James
Luard, Evan
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tapsell, Peter


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Tinn, James


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Emery, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Vickers, Dame Joan


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ennals, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitaker, Ben


Fisher, Nigel
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce



Forrester, John
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Mr. Christopher Price and


Garrett, W. E.
Murray, Albert
Mr. Peter M. Jackson.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Body, Richard
Hiley, Joseph
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, J. E. B.
Waddington, David


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ward, Dame Irene


Clegg, Walter
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Delargy, Hugh
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Woof, Robert


Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Wright, Esmond


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Longden, Gilbert



Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin
Mr. Biggs-Davison and


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mr. Simon Mahon.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 130.

Division No. 256.]
AYES
[3.24 a.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Black, Sir Cyril
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Waddington, David


Body, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ward, Dame Irene


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Woof, Robert


Delargy, Hugh
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Wright, Esmond


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Goodhew, Victor
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mr. Simon Mahon.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James





NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Newens, Stan


Ashley, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Norwood, Christopher


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon


Astor, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Haseldine, Norman
Oram, Albert E.


Awdry, Daniel
Hobden, Dennis
Orbach, Maurice


Barnes, Michael
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel
Hooley, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hooson, Emlyn
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horner, John
Rees, Merlyn


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richard, Ivor


Boston, Terence
Howie, W.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Huckfield, Leslie
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Hunt, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rowlands, E.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ryan, John


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silvester, Frederick


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dewar, Donald

Skeffington, Arthur


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Dickens, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Tapsell, Peter


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lubbock, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tinn, James


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Varley, Eric G.


Emery, Peter
Macdonald, A. H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


English, Michael
Mackie, John
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Marks, Kenneth
Whitaker, Ben


Fisher, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Winnick, David


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, John



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


Freeson, Reginald
Molloy, William
Mr. Christopher Price.

Clause 2

PROOF OF BREAKDOWN

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'the' to end of line 18 and insert
health of the petitioner has been or is likely to be injured'.
The purpose of the Amendment—I hope that it will not be thought totally unhelpful by the sponsors of the Bill—is to introduce a degree of certainty where at present there is an intolerable degree of vagueness. As at present drafted, the Clause requires a court to decide whether a petitioner can
reasonably be expected to live with the respondent".
The important word is "reasonably". What is reasonable? I can envisage the difficulties of counsel on either side in a defended suit struggling, as counsel have so often had to do in civil matters, with the word "reasonably". The legal dictionaries are full of example of such struggles.
Lawyers are always allowed first to take up the Oxford English Dictionary, and, no doubt, in the first defended action under this Clause it may be consulted. No great help will be forthcoming from that source. Hon. Members know how its editors try to help the reader by cataloguing all the definitions of the word in question under different headings.
How do they treat the word "reasonable"?
The first heading is:
Endowed with reason.
Those of us who have practised in the divorce court know that it is passion rather than reason that the parties are endowed with when they come to the divorce court.
The second offering from that dictionary is:
Having sound judgment, sensible, sane.
Again, that is singularly unhelpful. Those of us who have had experience of trying to persuade parties to a divorce action to any particular course know how seldom they are in a state to exercise sound judgment as to their own affairs.
The third heading by the dictionary is:
Able to discourse or discuss matters, ready of tongue or speech.
The latter they may be, but they are seldom the former.
The fourth phrase the dictionary gives its reader is:
Agreeable to reason; not irrational, absurd or ridiculous.
It goes on to quote from literature examples of the context, and the one chosen here is not altogether inapt for the Bill. The editors quote Shakespeare's "Richard III", where Lady Anne is recorded as saying:
It is a quarrel just and reasonable,
To be revenged on him that kill'd my husband.
To that the Duke of Gloucester, who subsequently married Lady Anne, replied:
He that bereft thee, lady, of thy husband,
Did it to help thee to a better husband.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have some difficulty in understanding how the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to his own Amendment, which is to substitute certain words in subsection (b). I hope that he will come to the Amendment very quickly.

Mr. Body: I am also seeking to delete certain words, and the word I particularly seek to delete is "reasonable." The reason is that the word will not be helpful to those who have to administer the law. My argument will be that in the place of "reasonable" there should be the words on the Order Paper. Before I can advance arguments for my choice of words I should demolish the argument for using "reasonable".
The fifth definition used to describe "reasonable" in the dictionary is:
Not going beyond the limit assigned by reason, not extravagant or excessive, moderate.
That will not help anyone in trying to decide what is reasonable in the way of the respondent's behaviour.
The sixth definition is:
Of such an amount, size, number etcetera as is judged to be appropriate or suitable to the circumstances or purpose.
That can be of no value.
The last heading in the Oxford English Dictionary is simply the word "proportionate", and that cannot help either.
So one turns to the legal dictionary, as lawyers have for many years. Perhaps


the most famous is that edited by Sir Roland Burrows. He begins at page 478 and ends at page 500.

An Hon. Member: Read them.

Mr. Body: I thought of reading all of those pages, but I do not want to be accused of filibustering. I do not think that the House would be very much wiser after hearing 32 pages of that dictionary. I was not, because I concluded that what he really meant was that "reasonable" is reasonable.

Sir L. Heald: I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us about the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Mr. Body: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not steel my thunder like that. I was intending to avoid the man on the Clapham omnibus, having read the Report of the Committee stage and noticed that my right hon. and learned Friend referred to that gentleman.
Of more help is Stroud's Dictionary, on this word "reasonable". It is apt in considering this Bill. The dictionary begins with these words:
It will be unreasonable to except an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'. Reasonableness varies in its conclusions, according to the idiosyncrasies of the individual"—
This is indeed appropriate to the world of divorce—
and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which build up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy, but mankind must be satisfied with the reasonableness within reach and in cases not covered by authority, the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge, sitting as a jury, usually determines what is reasonable in each particular case…. But frequently reasonableness in the words of Coke on Littleton 'belongeth to the knowledge of the law and is therefore, to be decided by the justices'.
Again, we are no further forward to discovering what is reasonable. I know what is reasonable. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) knows what is reasonable. We all know what is reasonable, but what I know to be reasonable may not be the verdict of someone else. The term "reasonableness" is conditioned by fashion and changes in standards and the development of values. What is reasonable today may be utterly unreasonable in years to come. The standard bearer of the so-called permissive society regards as totally unreasonable what to the Puritan seems to

be normal and natural. This difficulty is important because if the Bill were enacted our divorce law would be based upon it, not for years but for probably several generations. In that time ideas of reasonableness will have developed and changed.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is that point not an argument in favour of retaining the word?

Mr. Body: No, for reasons I will give soon. I want to go back in time and see how the word "reasonableness" has changed in the divorce courts, and in so doing, may have caused some degree of injustice. What is reasonable now may become regarded as unreasonable in years to come and vice versa. If one considers the mass of case law on the subject, one sees how the word has changed its meaning. I could give many examples and I shall not delve into any number of them, but one at least is most appropriate. I am going back into history to one of the earlier Matrimonial Causes Acts, that of 1857.
3.45 a.m.
Section 31 of that Act introduced the phrase "reasonable excuse" into our divorce law. It did so in the context that it gave the court discretion to refuse a decree of divorce for various reasons. One of those reasons was if the petitioner had deserted the other party or wilfully separated himself from the other party without "reasonable excuse". That word "reasonable" gave rise to a great deal of argument over the years and the argument persisted until well into this century, with varying standards being applied.
One of the cases early on was Morgan &amp; Morgan in 1869. Lord Penzance then applied criteria which every hon. Member, I imagine, would regard now as abhorrent. He said that there were only three grounds upon which discretion ought to be exercised in favour of the petitioner in this context. The first was where one party had been led to believe that the other was dead—surely a rather obvious one to sart with. The second was where a wife had been compelled to lead a life of prostitution—that would be a reasonable excuse. The third was where an act of adultery by the husband had been condoned by the wife and he in no way conduced to her own subsequent misconduct. Subsequently, a judge


was recorded as saying that even these three grounds did not impose any fetter upon him and that he could restrict his discretion to still fewer examples.
By 1918, standards had changed although the same Statute was still in effect. In that year, in the case Wickins &amp; Wickins, the judgment included this sentence:
Where Parliament has invested a court with a discretion which has to be exercised in an almost inexhaustible variety of delicate and difficult circumstances, and where Parliament has not thought fit to define or specify any cases or classes of cases fit for its application, this court ought not to limit or restrict that discretion by laying down rules within which alone a discretion is to be exercised or to place greater fetters upon a judge of the Divorce Court than what he has thought fit to impose.
This Clause as drafted does exactly that. It does not give any help to the courts. To use the words of the judge, it does not in any way define or specify any cases or classes of cases of reasonable behaviour.
The court consists of one man. He, the judge, will decide what is reasonable. What he thinks is reasonable may not be the opinion of his brother judge sitting in a neighbouring court. Yet the courts are to hear every conceivable kind of misconduct and have listened to every variety and permutation of behaviour.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), who probably has more experience of the law of divorce than any other hon. and learned Member or hon. Member, in the House, will agree that each defended case is different. It is sometimes difficult to know where one has to draw the dividing line between conduct which amounts to cruelty and conduct which is outside the four corners of the existing definition.
It is even more difficult to draw the dividing line between what is and what is not constructive desertion. The ground that we are now considering is the allegation of constructive desertion. The law, in effect, draws no distinction between desertion and constructive desertion, but it recognises the existence of constructive desertion as a ground for divorce. Constructive desertion is expulsive conduct which drives one spouse out of the matrimonial home so that that party has a

reasonable excuse to leave the matrimonial home. That has always been the test applied, namely, has the party leaving the matrimonial home a reasonable excuse for leaving?
For many years that reasonable excuse has been equated with a grave and weighty matter. The courts have had considerable difficulty in deciding what has or has not been a reasonable excuse. The hon. Member for Pontypool will agree that in constructive desertion the dividing line is not only slender but on occasion is quite illogical as to what is a reasonable excuse. One example is laziness—

Mr. Delargy: Oh, no.

Mr. Body: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) says "Oh, no". I shall be tempted to go on twice as long as I intended and still keep within the rules. But laziness and dirtiness have not been deemed to be a reasonable excuse for leaving the matrimonial home. Yet drunkenness and also association with other women, although not adulterous, has been deemed to be a reasonable excuse. Refusal of sexual intercourse, even when it has been continual and deliberate, has not been a reasonable excuse.
On the other side of this very slender dividing line, a wife's invincible repugnance to the sexual act has been ruled a reasonable excuse for a husband to leave her. Yet in another case a husband's refusal of sexual intercourse, coupled with just a few acts of neglect, has not justified a wife leaving.
Another example often quoted is the wife who preferred cats to her husband and who had an array of 25 of them. In that case it was held to be reasonable for the husband to leave. On the other hand, having a neurotic husband, no matter how neurotic he was, was not a reasonable excuse for a wife leaving.
One could quote many more examples, but I will not, in deference to the hon. Member for Thurrock who I hope will intervene in the debate. These examples show that the test of what is a reasonable excuse and what is reasonable behaviour is not satisfactory.
Desertion is still to be a ground for divorce, or, more strictly, proof of breakdown, as the Bill is now framed. Clause 2(1)(c) makes that clear. But, as I have


tried to point out, the term "desertion" embraces constructive desertion which would give to the other party a reasonable excuse to leave. The party behaving unreasonably is presumably the party giving to the other a reasonable excuse for leaving. Therefore, I submit that this ground, as it is now framed, is not necessary. It is in fact surplus, because it is covered by subsection (1)(c). It is the same as constructive desertion, for the law does not draw a distinction between desertion and constructive desertion. Unreasonable behaviour is and must be giving the other party a reasonable excuse for leaving.
If the Amendment is accepted, it will not be tantamount to retaining the concept of a matrimonial offence. I am sure that the hon. Member for Pontypool will agree that the decision in Gollins v. Gollins, in effect, destroyed or radically ate into the concept of the matrimonial offence concerning cruelty, because a person can be a cruel husband or wife without any intention. The element of intention has now been removed from any definition of cruelty. The mere fact of causing to either spouse injury to health or the apprehension of such injury is now enough to provide the other party with a case for cruelty and a ground for divorce.
The criteria were considered at great length by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, presided over by Lord Morton. The House knows that this Royal Commission considered this problem for about four years and went into enormous detail and heard a wealth of evidence. Indeed, it would be almost impossible to imagine any further evidence which it could usefully have heard to arrive at its conclusions. May I therefore shortly remind the House of the conclusion which the Royal Commission reached on this subject.
4.0 a.m.
The Royal Commission applied its mind, as it had to, to whether this test of injury to health ought to be continued, or whether instead the test as is now proposed in the Bill should be applied, and its conclusion was:
The test of injury or threatened injury to health has been applied for a great number of years and, in our opinion, the fact that during that time social conditions have changed considerably has not altered its soundness. It is said by those who wish to dispense

with the test that it operates unfairly against the person, who, being robust both in mind and body, is able to withstand ill-treatment, but nevertheless finds married life intolerable by reason of the pain and misery caused by the other spouse's conduct … Cruel conduct as we see it, must be judged with reference to the person affected by it."—
The Commission is adamant about that.
If, as an alternative, it were sought to fix some objective standard, such as that of conduct which no reasonable man should be expected to endure,"—
which, after all, is what the Bill is trying to do—
injustice would be done where conduct did not measure up to the standard set and yet was serious enough to injure the health of a person of delicate physique or susceptible temperament.
Could words be stronger than that? After considering all that evidence for four or five years, this strong Royal Commission reached the unanimous view that injustice would be done if this test, the test as applied in the Bill, were adopted rather than the test of ill-health which I seek to introduce.

Mr. Molloy: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions in what is already a long speech make a long speech longer.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman has based a great deal of his argument on the word "reasonable", which he thought was the wrong word. During the last few moments the hon. Gentleman has quoted an important piece of evidence in support of his arguments. The word frequently used in that evidence is "reasonable"—what the reasonable man would expect. It seems that when it suits the hon. Gentleman's purpose that word is all right, but it is not all right in another context when he is opposed to the principle.

Mr. Body: I do not want to read all that again, but the hon. Gentleman has either misunderstood me, or perhaps has not followed that quotation. The Royal Commission said that if one adopted what it called the objective test of the reasonable man, of reasonable behaviour, that test would cause injustice to those who were of a particularly sensitive temperament. I shall not refer again to the words about certain people who are particularly weak or incapable of tolerating that standard of behaviour.
I hope I have made it plain that that passage is entirely in support of my contention that the Bill, as it is phrased, would cause injustice to a number of people. I am not saying that it would happen on a large scale, but I urge the House to consider that very weighty opinion, based on considerable evidence, that injustice would be caused by the so-called objective test of the reasonable man.

Mr. Delargy: I will be brief, as is my wont. I wish all other hon. Members would be brief, too. The persuasiveness of speeches is not measured by their length. Having listened during the late hours of the night and the early hours of this morning to several lawyers, I have developed an immense sympathy for judges. They earn every penny that we give them.
Having said that, may I, if the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) will pardon the choice of words, say that I find his Amendment quite reasonable. It seeks to change words in the Bill. Any proposal to change them should have our approval and support. The words in paragraph (b) are abominable. They are:
… the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;".
In the name of reason, what do those words mean? What are they intended to hide or cover?

Mrs. Jill Knight: Hear, hear.

Mr. Delargy: In the name of common sense and good English prose, they ought to be thrown out. The paragraph says "cannot reasonably be expected"—expected by whom? [AN HON. MEMBER: "By the court".] But the court is one person, we are told.

Mr. Clegg: The judge.

Mr. Delargy: And he listens to the case argued by a lawyer, I suppose. A lot of reason we see there! What is "reasonably"? Whose reason is it? Of all the loose and lax expressions I have ever heard, this is amongst the loosest and most lax. The person who drafted these words and put them in the Bill should be compelled to come to the Bar

of the House and apologise to us. They are absolutely meaningless.
I know what the words in the Amendment mean. They speak of the health of the petitioner—
health of the petitioner has been or is likely to be injured".
I have not the legal knowledge of some of the hon. and learned Members, but at least I know what those words mean, whereas I do not know what is meant by the words already in the paragraph.
I appeal to the sponsors to accept some change, or else to let the House, the country and the judges know what is meant by the words
cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
I beg of the promoter of the Bill to give this Amendment his serious consideration.

Mrs. Knight: A record has been set up tonight in that twice the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) has spoken and on each occasion I have been fully in agreement with him. When I read this paragraph of the subsection, I too wrote down "What does this mean?" It seems to me to be an almost incredibly woolly sentence. The pity of it is that if it were properly drafted, it would completely knock out the need for paragraph (a). There need be no paragraph (a) if paragraph (b) had been properly and sensibly drafted. But it was not.
Let us endeavour to comprehend what it might mean. To some people it may mean that one of the partners nags, or is cold, or that one is a pop fan while the other likes the classics. Some years ago a judge granted a divorce because one of the spouses—I believe it was the husband—squeezed the toothpaste tube in the middle. That was thought to be unreasonable behaviour. The whole point is that what may be unreasonable to one judge would be totally reasonable to another judge. For instance, a petitioner might say that his partner nagged, but a deaf judge might rule that that was not intolerable. The ideal of uniformity all over the country has been stressed again and again over the last few days, but this subsection will provide for the complete opposite and the widest variety of treatment.
No time factor is involved before which this subsection could be invoked. This could happen after six months. The Bill so weakens the institution of marriage that people might think that there was no point in getting married, if, after six months, they found that they could not stand their partners habit of cracking nuts with his teeth and could get a divorce because of it. To some judges that may be a perfect reason for a divorce. If properly framed, paragraph (b) could also refer to adultery and there would be no need for paragraph (a).
One of the reasons that I thought that some reform was needed was that people sometimes had to commit perjury to get a divorce. But this will lead to the same old thing—the detective in the grubby mac hiding under the bed or in the car boot to get evidence. There would be perjury because, by providing no time limit, this provision gives a short cut to divorce. By committing perjury one need not wait five or even two years to get one. The Amendment will at least tidy the thing up. I do not like the subsection at all, but I understand why it is woolly—all kinds of things can be bundled under its shelter. The Amendment would enable any judge to decide whether the petitioner had a good case, and there would be no worrying difference between a deaf judge in Newcastle and a passionless judge in London. Because the subsection so badly needs tightening up and the Amendment is one way to do it, I support it.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Clegg: I should like to support the arguments which have been advanced in favour of this Amendment. It is a really serious point, and I hope we shall have a contribution to this debate from the Solicitor-General, because that certainly would be of guidance.
The valid point raised here is the desire, I think, of the sponsors of the Bill to give wide discretion to the judge who deals with a case of divorce under this paragraph. It seems to me that there is at the moment in certain legal circles a mood for wanting a form of palm tree justice, and Parliament gives judges very wide discretion to act in whatever way they think fit. The discretion here proposed to be given, unless amended, will be extremely wide indeed. There is a dilemma here for Parliament. I am not

one who would seek unnecessarily to restrict a judge in the exercise of discretion, but I think that the balance here, unless we make the Amendment, is wrong.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray), who is a supporter of the Bill, indicated earlier that the matters set out in this Clause are guidelines for the judge. I think there are very few guidelines in this subsection for the judge, because, as my hon. Friends have said and as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr Delargy) has said, it gives him no real guidance. It is a fact that judges vary. Some judges are known as plaintiff's judges, others as defendant's judges. I am certain it would be difficult for a lawyer to advise a client who asked, "Can I get a divorce under that paragraph?" As it is drafted, the lawyer would say, "If you get Judge So-and-So you may well get a divorce, but if you go before another judge it is perhaps unlikely that you will." Any law which is uncertain is bad law, because it leads to appeals and further litigation
The Amendment would restrict the judges' discretion, but if we leave the paragraph unamended Parliament will not be laying down guidelines for the judges. The judges would then start laying down guidelines for one another by precedents. Are we then really transferring responsibility from Parliament to the Court of Appeal to say what discretions are rightly exercised and which are not?

Mr. Hooley: As a layman I suppose I ought to tread with extreme caution amid this wealth of expertise, but as a layman I should have thought the Amendment compounded the fault it was thought to remedy. There may be among lawyers some definintion of "health", but it must be a highly ingenious one. I hestitate to define what is "health." I should like to know whether it includes absolutely every form of physical and mental health, and how, in the changing state of medical science, one can determine that.
Much worse than that, under the Amendment one has to establish that it is the behaviour of one party which has caused deterioration in the health of the other. In assessing entitlements to pensions it is notorious how difficult it is to determine whether a particular disability


or failure of health, is directly attributable to cause A, B, C or D, and how on earth one will achieve an exact knowledge of how far a particular lack of good health of one partner is attributable to the behaviour of the other party I find it hard to see, and I should have thought it very difficult indeed. The thought that the Amendment is framed more precisely than the original paragraph I should have thought entirely illusory. Indeed, it is worse, for at least the Clause relates to something which has happened to behaviour or to events which have occurred, where as the Amendment uses the words "is likely to be".
How can the courts come to a rational conclusion that a person's health is likely to be affected? There may be circumstances in which all the suppositions point one way, but there will be others in which no one could possibly say whether the health of one party is likely to be affected by the behaviour of the other party. The nature of the person's health and his whole medical history would have to be considered in assessing whether the behaviour of the other party might cause damage to his health.
There may be legal definitions which lawyers regard as watertight, but in view of the rapidly changing knowledge of medicine, I doubt whether the medical profession would regard them as watertight. I do not see how any supporter of the Amendment can claim that it is more precise than the words which it seeks to replace.

Mr. Ian Percival: I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) can bear with two or three minutes from one more lawyer because, to use his phrase, I am on his side. I echo the hope that the Solicitor-General will give some advice, because this debate has raised considerations which did not fully occur to those of us who took part in the Committee proceedings.
I, too, understand the motives of the promoters in this provision; they want to get rid of the concept of cruelty. I had always supposed that what was intended in this provision was wording which, broadly speaking, had the same effect but which removed the concept of cruelty as an offence and the concept of intention, if there were any such concept left after Gollins v. Gollins.
But I confess that I made a mistake which lawyers are apt to make of assuming that I knew what the words meant, whereas in fact all that means is that I had my own conception of how they would be applied. The advantage of having a debate such as this, with both lawyers and laymen taking part, is that we see how different people can have very different conceptions of how words should be applied. We heard the legal approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) in which he cited a number of cases showing how many different interpretations there can be of such wording and we heard the hon. Member for Thurrock—I am seeking to be complimentary to him—in lay, robust, commonsense terms posing the question of what the wording means—and by whose standards? These are queries of substance and I hope that we shall have some guidance on them both from the Solicitor-General and from the sponsor.
One other question has arisen. I believe that this is a question for the Solicitor-General. The question concerns whether my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston is correct in saying that as a matter of law paragraph (b) puts into words the concept of constructive desertion as at present known. If so, one would have the curious position that in constructive desertion proceedings could be brought immediately, whereas in actual desertion there would have to be a period of two years' delay before proceedings could be brought. In other words, whereas at present in both cases a period of three years must elapse, it is proposed—this is the only change proposed in this connection—to reduce the three years to two years.
I say that that is the only change proposed. If anything else is proposed, it has not emerged in our debates hitherto. If, however, anything else is intended, this discussion has served a useful purpose in bringing it out into the open.
The effect of this change will be that in the case of actual desertion—that is, where the husband walks out on the wife, or where she walks out on him—a period of two years must elapse before proceedings can be brought. If, on the other hand, one of the parties acts in such a way as to drive the other out—that is,


what we now call constructive desertion—then, without any logical reason for the difference, it seems, proceedings could be brought immediately. If that is the consequence of the provision, it was not hitherto observed in Committee. I trust that the Solicitor-General will make the position clear.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): In considering the Bill, it is my responsibility to intervene when I think that it may be possible for me to assist hon. Members on points of law that have been raised. I therefore intervene at this point in view of the questions that have been asked.
One should, in considering the Amendment, reach a clear conclusion about the objective of the sponsors in this provision. I suggest that the Bill seeks in this part to achieve something that is inherently desirable; namely, in effect to preserve the respondent's cruelty as one of the facts from which breakdown is to be inferred, but in so doing to avoid the use of the phrase "matrimonial offence", with all its emotional overtones and implications.
4.30 a.m.
There are certain advantages to be gained from avoiding that phrase. This is really an adjustment of an existing situation in the law to take into account the introduction of the new concept of irretrievable breakdown. The question which arises is whether that object is achieved by the present language in the Bill or whether it would be better advanced by the language of the Amendment. I have listened with great care to the debate and it seems that there is great force in the criticism made of the Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that the term "health" is, like the term "reasonable", one that offers quite a notable degree of discretion in its interpretation. It is desirable in a matter of this kind to preserve a substantial element of judicial interpretation in its treatment. The formula employed in the Bill and recommended by my hon. Friend has the effect, which I believe is the intended effect, of preserving the law as declared by the House of Lords in the cases that have often been referred to, the Gollins v. Gollins case and the Williams v. Williams case, and to do so with this single element of

change that there is henceforward not to be a requirement of actual or apprehended injury to the petitioner's health. All the other criteria in the existing law would remain.
In particular, the respondent's behaviour must be grave and weighty, or, in the words of Lord Pearce in Gollins, such an abuse that the spouse should not be called upon to bear it. That is the kind of standard test one seeks to apply. In contrast with Clause 2(1)(a) the test is an objective one. The court, not the petitioner, has to regard the respondent's conduct as so grave that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. That test will not be satisfied merely by saying that a temporary separation is reasonable because, for example, the respondent is suffering from a readily curable illness which makes him unendurable while it lasts.
On the other hand, the Court has to consider the particular petitioner in the light of his or her circumstances and character. If the court finds he cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent the test will be satisfied even though the court may think the respondent's behaviour would be endurable to a petitioner of a tougher fibre. I say with respect to hon. Members who have been critical of the width of discretion conferred by reference to reasonableness, as it were simpliciter, that the concept of reasonableness is always to be regarded in our law as I understand it as reasonable in all the circumstances. This is about the limit of the definition of "reasonableness" that one can offer.
Reasonableness undoubtedly induces the element of discretion, a matter to be determined and decided by judicial discretion. There is inevitably and inescapably a trust in matters of this kind upon the judiciary. Within that context the court will have regard to all the circumstances and they will be psychological factors, practical factors, material factors, factors no doubt bearing on health and other matters which have been raised. If I am asked by the House to express a view, I remind the House of the care with which expert minds have been applied to the treatment of this definition and suggest that on the whole the Bill in its present language achieves a good objective and the one that is intended.

Sir L. Heald: During the Committee stage both of this Bill and of its predecessor there was considerable discussion about the word "reasonable". On the first occasion we had the great advantage of the presence, not only of the Solicitor-General, but also of the Attorney-General. We had some most interesting dissertations on this subject and our hopes were greatly raised when we parted with the matter, because the Attorney-General said that he would go away and think about it. We were all looking forward with great pleasure to hearing his comments on Report. Unfortunately, that stage was never reached.
On this occasion we were very unfortunate, because neither of the Law Officers was present. We discussed the matter again, and considerable unhappiness was expressed. I well remember that the Solicitor-General was with us, but some great matters arose and he had to leave; and we were bereft of counsel. It is true, as hon. Members have said with great perception, although they do not have to argue about these words in the courts, that "reasonable" has caused much trouble. I thought that we had convinced the Attorney-General that it should be got rid of. We afterwards discovered that an unfortunate train of events had occurred, because the Attorney-General apparently became involved in the Law Commission. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said that the Attorney-General had been seduced by me but had been rescued by the Law Commission. I do not know whether one could describe that as falling between the devil and the deep blue sea. It was unfortunate that we did not get any eventual result.
I followed closely what the Solicitor-General said. He has not convinced the House that there is a justification for retaining this word. I have some doubts as to whether my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) has got the matter right, but I am fairly well satisfied that the Solicitor-General has not got it right either. I suggest that we should try to remedy the situation that we had last time when the Attorney-General went away and thought about it, only I hope that on this occasion he—or the Solicitor-General—will not get involved with the Law Commission. It would be worth while if the matter could be considered again, it may be in an-

other place, if the Bill ever reaches another place. It will be an advantage if at last a solution can be found to this problem which has been troubling people for years. There has undoubtedly been a strong leaning towards getting rid of the word "reasonable". I shall not go into any more cases about it, but it was not me—it was the Attorney-General—who introduced the man on the Clapham omnibus. I think that the man on the Clapham omnibus is now almost dead. At least, he must be a very old gentleman if he is still alive. I hope that we shall not lose hope of getting something better. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to think about it again.

Mr. John Hall: When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) move the Amendment in very measured terms and, for a barrister, very briefly, I began to develop a rooted inhibition to the use of the word "reasonable". Nothing that I have heard since has removed the feeling from me. I am, however, rather convinced by the arguments which I have heard—not, I hasten to say, from the Solicitor-General—in favour of the Amendment that we ought to find alternative wording.
I do not say that the wording suggested by my hon. Friend is necessarily right, but certainly I do not like the Clause as it stands. To refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), it seems to me to give far too much discretion to the judges—and judges can be very longwinded and also very different in their approach to matters. The interpretation can be extremely wide.
I imagine that a large number of hon. Members, on both sides, have from time to time had their wives say to them, "I do not know how I continue to live with you." I am certain that there were occasions when they felt too exasperated to go on living with each other, but they continue to do so.
I remember a lady, who comes into one's house from time to time to oblige, who developed over the years an obvious neurosis of some kind. Eventually we got to the bottom of it. She was having trouble with her husband. They were not getting on well together. It came down to something very simple. She said, "Every time he drinks a cup of tea, he


sucks it through his moustache and puts my teeth so much on edge that I have to take them out." That was a small thing by itself but it worked on her to such an extent that it affected her health. I suppose that she was the sort of person who would have to go before a judge for him to adjudge whether her husband's behaviour was reasonable. I would say that here was a habit of the husband—and of the wife, too—which made it difficult for these people to go on living together when all that the wife wanted was a good talking to.
One can think of many instances in which a judge might consider that a case which was put before him was one in which it could be said that the petitioner could not go on living with the respondent, or vice versa. He might grant a divorce, but another judge might not.
The Solicitor-General, in his interpretation, used the words that the behaviour was of such a grave nature that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, but that is not what the Bill says. It simply puts it quite plainly:
that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent".
That is much too wide an expression. I prefer the words of the existing law as a definition of cruelty. They are precise and use the word "health", to which reference has been made.
Under the existing law, the definition of cruelty is
conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger.
That is a fairly positive definition, as far as any legal definition is positive. It is more effective as a definition than for a judge to have to decide what is meant by "reasonable".
I would not suggest that necessarily the Amendment as it stands should be accepted, although if it were put to the vote I should support it, but I echo the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that the Solicitor-General should give this matter further thought.
There is genuine uneasiness on both sides of the House about the present wording and the difficulties to which it

may give rise in the courts. The Solicitor-General can act, in a sense, only as adviser, since this is a Private Member's Bill, but I hope that he will tell us that additional thought will be given to this matter before the Bill goes to the other place, if it ever does, and that other words will be suggested.
I am sure that the House would wish to hear the Solicitor-General again if he rose to intervene in that sense. It would be most helpful, and I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) might then be prepared to consider what course he should adopt on the Amendment. I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself is not entirely at ease with the answer which he gave. Perhaps his first thoughts were the right ones, until he became, as my right hon. and learned Friend put it, seduced by the Law Commission.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Abse: The formula used here originally emerged not out of careless thought but from the consensus which came from the long meetings between the Church Committee which had sat under the Bishop of Exeter and the Law Commissioners. I mentioned that because the House should know that this formula is one upon which the thoughts and attention of both those bodies have been deployed.
As the Solicitor-General explained, the tendency is to preserve the concept of cruelty but to preserve it as one of the facts from which breakdown is to be inferred. Cruelty as it is interpreted in the courts simply means grave and weighty conduct making a continuation of cohabitation intolerable, but as it stands at present it is grave and weighty conduct which has caused or is likely to cause injury to health.
In putting down the Amendment, the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) has had the perspicacity, as one would expect, to highlight a distinction between the existing law and the intention of the sponsors of the Bill. The formula is intended to preserve the law as declared by the House of Lords in the two cases familiar to lawyers, Gollins v. Gollins and Williams v. Williams, but, as the hon. Gentleman appreciated, without the requirement of actual or apprehended injury to the petitioner's health.


I stress that because, as the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) very properly urged, the House should know without ambiguity what we are trying to do.
I believe that that objective is correctly translated into the wording of subsection (1)(b). I am fortified by the opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General and also by the knowledge that that is the opinion of the Law Commissioners, who, although they can take no responsibility for policy, have sought to make practicable the objectives of the sponsors and put them into language capable of interpretation in the way we hope they will be by the courts.
There are good reasons—they may or may not commend themselves to the House—for leaving out the reference to injury to health. We seek to escape from the charades that embroider the divorce law. One of the charades that are notorious to lawyers and disliked by so many judges is the calling of formal medical evidence to prove the dangers to health. The blunt fact is—and we must all know it—that no doctor of sensibility, knowing that a woman has endured grave and weighty conduct making a continuation of cohabitation intolerable is likely to deny giving the appropriate evidence for a woman who may be courageous enough or of sufficiently tough fibre not to crack under the intolerable behaviour. The requirement of apprehended injury is a hang-over from the bad old days when cruelty just constituted a bashing. We all know today that there are worse forms of cruelty.
We, therefore, ask why should a woman with guts who refuses for the sake of her children to break under the strain be placed in a worse position than a woman of more fragile disposition, when the court objectively could find that she has been treated with cruelty? If the grave and weighty misconduct is in the form of cruelty to the children, should a woman go through what may be a charade in her case of bringing a doctor to give evidence on her health?
Moreover—and the hon. and learned Member for Southport has approached this point, although he has come at it from a different way—there is a contradiction in the present law which acceptance of the Amendment would perpetuate. If a

man's misconduct today is so grave and weighty that a woman is compelled to leave the house, and is in effect driven out, because of the doctrine of constructive desertion she has to wait three years before she can obtain her divorce under the law as it stands. We do not believe that there is any rationale for perpetuating a situation where the lack of a medical certificate may prevent a divorce for three years, even though a court could objectively find that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Therefore, we frankly aim to end this contradiction and this unsatisfactory relationship of cruelty and constructive desertion.
It should be understood that the formula employed will enable the problem of insanity in marriage to be covered more realistically than it is now, whether the misfortune is in effect equated with a matrimonial offence. If someone is repeatedly discharged from hospital, as so often happens now in the treatment of mental illness, the test the courts will apply is not whether the wife is being made ill, nor the incurability of the insanity, but whether the marriage has irrevocably broken down by reason of the husband's intolerable behaviour, albeit behaviour that perhaps he could not control. If the other party shows that such intolerable conduct exists she can obtain her release. Having made her agonising decision, and being capable of providing that the conduct is such that she could not reasonably be expected to live a terrifying life with a seriously ill man, should she be put to the proof that she too is being made physically or mentally ill? We do not think so.

Mr. Percival: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is saying that what is intended here is meant to be interpreted as referring to grave and weighty conduct making a continuation of cohabitation intolerable, which is leaving out the health aspect. That I can understand. But it would help if the hon. Gentleman could answer this. If that is what is intended, how does he say that that is to be spelt out of the wording used? In any event, if that is what is intended, would not the promoters at least consider this later, so as to use those very words? Then the court will not have to spell them out. It will have them there.

Mr. Abse: I take the point. It has been given consideration. We will not close our minds to this. I can assure hon. Members who have asked for a further assurance that we do not believe, in a matter as subtle as this, that we have necessarily said the last word. We are trying to eliminate the notion that there has to be this medical evidence. We are also trying to deal with this question of mental illness and get it within the formula. If we can do this the medical and legal profession will be much relieved.
We are trying to get rid of something which has fallen into disrepute. Just as, once before, the Attorney-General gave

consideration as to whether it could be improved in any way, although I am certainly not persuaded that the hon. Member has the answer, I do not say that we have necessarily got perfection. On behalf of the sponsors I can certainly undertake that further thought and discussion will take place and we will see if anything can emerge in another place.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 40.

Division No. 257.]
AYES
[4.57 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Murray, Albert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Garrett, W. E.
Newens, Stan


Archer, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Norwood, Christopher


Ashley, Jack
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oakes, Gordon


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Astor, John
Hamling, William
Oram, Albert E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Haseldine, Norman
Orbach, Maurice


Awdry, Daniel
Hobden, Denis
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hooley, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barnes, Michael
Hooson, Emlyn
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Joel
Hornby, Richard
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Horner, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Richard, Ivor


Boston, Terence
Huckfield, Leslie
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Irvine Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowlands, E.


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Ryan, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Hn, S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sinclair, Sir George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dickens, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Dobson, Ray
Luard, Evan
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacDermot, Niall
Tinn, James


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Emery, Peter
Mackie, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


English, Michael
MacLennan, Robert
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ennals, David
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Mawell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitaker, Ben


Fisher, Nigel
Mayhew, Christopher
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Molloy, William
Mr Christopher Price and


Forrester, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Mr Peter M. Jackson.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Longden, Gilbert


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Maddan, Martin


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Clegg, Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Maude, Angus


Delargy, Hugh
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian


Farr, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Goodhew, Victor
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Small, William




Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Waddington, David
Woof, Robert
Mr John Biggs-Davison and


Ward, Dame Irene
Wright, Esmond
Mr Simon Mahon


Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 258.]
AYES
[5.5 a.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon (K'ton, S.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Small, William


Body, Richard
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Waddington, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ward, Dame Irene


Campbell, Bruce (Oldham, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ster &amp; Chatham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Woof, Robert


Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Wright, Esmond


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Longden, Gilbert



Hall, John (Wycombe)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maddan, Martin
Mr John Biggs-Davison and


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mr Simon Mahon.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Molloy, William


Archer, Peter
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Murray, Albert


Astor, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Freeson, Reginald
Norwood, Christopher


Awdry, Daniel
Garrett, W. E.
Oakes, Gordon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Ogden, Eric


Balniel, Lord
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oram, Albert E.


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Batsford, Brian
Haseldine, Norman
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hobden, Denis
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooson, Emlyn
Rees, Merlyn


Biffen, John
Hornby, Richard
Richard, Ivor


Blaker, Peter
Horner, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Booth, Albert
Howie, W.
Rodgers, William (S'ton-on-Tees)


Boston, Terence
Huckfield, Leslie
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Ryan, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irvine, Sir A. (L'pool, Edge Hill)
Sheldon, Robert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Brooks, Edwin
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silverman, Julius


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Channon, H. P. G.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, C.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Taverne, Dick


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dickens, James
Luard, Evan
Varley, Eric G.


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame John


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Whitaker, Ben


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Emery, Peter
MacLennan, Robert
Winnick, David


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth



Ennals, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Mr Christopher Price and


Fisher, Nigel
Mendelson, John
Mr Peter M. Jackson.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that Motion at this moment.

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 121.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.
The Bill states that the court shall consider paragraph (d) as one of the


reasons for granting a divorce. That reads,
that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent does not object to a decree being granted.
5.15 a.m.
Anyone who has travelled fairly extensively in the Commonwealth or in any of the other overseas territories cannot have helped observing the fairly high percentage of British subjects who are working in one or more of the professions in those countries. There are a number of reasons why married people live apart. Some do so simply because the husband is serving in the Forces, or working overseas, or because climatic conditions are unsuitable for the wife, or because the wife has returned home because of an unstable political situation. Sickness or injury may produce a situation in which it is virtually impossible to move a patient for a long time, requiring treatment away from home, and it is not unknown for a British subject to find himself imprisoned in a foreign goal for a few years.
The danger in such circumstances is that one spouse may not even be aware that divorce proceedings have been commenced, and because the person concerned is not aware of what paragraph (d) provides for, or that a divorce is even contemplated by his partner, he may be presented with a fait accompli.
Such circumstances would be rare indeed if the Amendment were accepted. It would provide both parties with more time to think things over. It would provide three more years in which to overcome the problems which face those who are separated by thousands of miles. There are also those who are difficult to trace, and, in particular, those married people who have children to consider, or whom they should consider.
The Bill will be a far better Bill if the Amendment is accepted. Such an acceptance would at least be consistent with paragraph (e).

Mr. Waddington: I support the Amendment, for rather different reasons from those advanced by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), but that is not to say that I do not agree with the reasons which he has advanced.
We are divided into two camps in this House tonight, not party camps, because our differences of opinion run across party lines to some extent, but two camps in the sense that a large number of us feel that divorce should be made rather more difficult rather than easier. It seems that a majority of hon. Members are convinced that divorce should be made easier. That is the real division which we are arguing about on one Clause or another.
During my life in the courts I have found no evidence that easier divorce has made for happier marriage, and I shall be very surprised if any hon. Member says that he has found any evidence of that. Common sense tells one that people entering marriage knowing that it will be extremely difficult to sever the bond are more likely to make a go of things and remain happily married than those who enter marriage believing that the link can be broken comparatively easily.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not on the Second or Third Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Waddington: I am certainly trying to do so, Mr. Speaker. The argument I am advancing is this. Although different reasons were advanced by the hon. Member for his Amendment, I support the Amendment because it will at least make the dissolution of marriage as a result of the passing of this Bill rather more difficult than it will be if the Bill is passed without being amended in any way at all.
Immense sums of money are already spent on divorce in this country. More money will be spent if the Bill is passed unamended, and even more money will be spent on divorce as a result of other Measures which have gone through the House recently, notably the Measure lowering the age of consent—free marriage, as it is called.
I heartily support the Amendment because I look upon it as one ray of light in the darkness and one realistic attempt to make marriage a lasting bond and restore some sanity to a Bill which to my mind contains precious little of it.

Mr. Richard: I intervene briefly to say that I entirely support the sentiments behind the Amendment. I should


perhaps say to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) that the position that he has in mind is already protected under the Clause as drafted. As I read subsection (2), and particularly paragraph (d) which my hon. Friend has in mind, the position is this. It gives to either party, where there has been actual separation for two years, the right to go to the court and ask for a divorce, provided that—and this is the crucial proviso—the other spouse consents. In the situation which my hon. Friend was talking about, where one of the parties is in a position abroad, or is in prison, there is first the proviso that consent would be required—

Mr. Spriggs: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, he is basing his argument on the supposition that when people go to court for a divorce they are honest people. There is a grave doubt about this.

Mr. Richard: No, I was not basing my remarks upon that supposition. I am basing my argument upon the supposition that when a person goes to court a judge has to be satisfied that the other spouse has been served with the petition. If he could not be so satisfied—and the rules for service are quite strict—an order would have to be made for substituted service, and the spouse seeking the divorce would have to satisfy the judge that consent had been given.
This is a well recognised procedure. There are a number of protections already written into the divorce law covering the precise situation that my hon. Friend has in mind, when one spouse is petitioning and the other spouse has got to assent to some procedural part of the petition or, as in this case, where the other spouse would have to give evidence to the court that he does not object to the decree being granted. With respect to my hon. Friend, the position is pretty well covered under the existing law. I do not think that extending the period from two years to five

years would deal with the situation of the deceitful or lying petitioner.

Mr. Angus Maude: I first took the view that the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) has been propounding when I looked at the Amendment—that it was unnecessary because the Clause covered the situation. But he has mis-stated the case, because he based his case on the fact that the respondent had to consent. That is not what the Clause says. It refers to the respondent not objecting—a very different matter.
I understood that the doubt of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) was whether it would not be possible for proceedings to be started when it was physically impossible for the respondent to serve notice of objection. So far, the hon. Member has not convinced me that the law could insist that the act of consenting was notified to the court. There is a real point here.

Mr. Richard: There would be a real point were not rules for this procedure going to be made in accordance with the enabling provisions. One thing which any set of matrimonial rules would have to take into account, as they have done in previous Acts, is the precise point that the hon. Member has in mind. In other words, a specific rule would have to be enacted making the consent, rather than the non-objection by silence, a condition precedent to the granting of a decree under subsection (1)(d).

Mr. Abse: In fact, Clause 2(6) makes the point which my hon. Friend is emphasising, and perhaps may satisfy the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude).

Mr. Richard: I am obliged. Clause 2(6) dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's". I hope that it satisfies hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 118.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Maude, Angus
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woof, Robert


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wright, Esmond


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Small, William



Longden, Gilbert
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Waddington, David
Mr. Leslie Spriggs and


Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Simon Mahon.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Newens, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Norwood, Christopher


Astor, John
Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric


Awdry, Daniel
Hobden, Denis (Brighton, Kemptown)
Oram, Albert E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Barnes, Michael
Hooson, Emlyn
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel
Hornby, Richard
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Horner, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, Leslie
Richard, Ivor


Boston, Terence
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Brooks, Edwin
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ryan, John


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Cant, R. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert


Channon, H. P. G.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Clegg, Walter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skeffington, Arthur


Dewar, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dickens, James
Luard, Evan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Emery, Peter
MacLennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Marks, Kenneth
Whitaker, Ben


Fernyhough, E.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Winnick, David


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, John



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Mr. Christopher Price and


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Molloy, William
Mr. Peter M. Jackson.


Freeson, Reginald

Mr. Michael English: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 3, at end insert:
(2) The court shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably if the respondent satisfies the court—

(a) that the marriage was entered into after the commencement of this Act by a religious ceremony;
(b) that notwithstanding subsection 1 above, granting the petition would conflict with tenets of the religion according to the rites of which the marriage ceremony took place; and
(c) that both the petitioner and the respondent knew, at the time of the marriage, of the relevant tenets of the religion concerned.

The object of the Amendment is simple—to meet the problem of those people, some of whom are Roman Catholics and some of whom are members of Protestant groups, who wish to enter into what have

been termed in another context enforceable agreements. Theirs is a genuine belief. It is very deeply held by many people. It is a belief that if one enters into an agreement by a religious ceremony, that religious ceremony should have some meaning.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will talk among themselves, they must do so in tones which are not as loud as those of the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Mr. English: The point of the Amendment is to allow those who desire to enter into a religious ceremony of marriage—and only those—knowing that it has some meaning within the tenets of their Church, whichever Church it is, to believe that it has the meaning which they attach to it.

Mr. Stanley Orme: But that is exactly how they interpret the religious ceremony in the marriage which takes place. Why do they need that reinforced when to them it is a sacrament into which they have entered?

Mr. English: There are occasions on which people enter into religious ceremonies of marriage not entirely for those reasons. They may enter into religious ceremonies of marriage under a certain degree of pressure from the Church concerned or out of social rather than religious motives.

Mr. Richard: This is not a Bill to protect religious ceremonies. It is a Bill to amend the divorce law.

Mr. English: I am aware of that. I am suggesting that there is, and ought to be, a distinction between the civil law of the land and the religious desires of individuals. In France, one enters into a civil ceremony in all cases and one may or may not enter into a religious ceremony. In this country, one can contract a marriage by means of a civil ceremony or by means of a religious ceremony. My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is a lawyer and he is aware that the principle in this country is different from that in some other countries.
If one is able in this country to decide to enter into marriage by either a civil or religious ceremony, both being legally valid according to the civil law of the land, is it unreasonable to say that one should be able to dissolve the marriage according to similar principles? Is it correct to say that we are altering the law of divorce. That must have some relationship to the law of marriage which, in this country, says that one can enter into marriage by a civil or religious ceremony.
The Amendment is simple. It suggests that if one wishes to enter into a civil ceremony in a registrar office, according to the civil laws of marriage and divorce, well and good. But if one wishes to enter into a religious marriage ceremony in a church, one should be entitled to do so. We aim in this House to cater for minorities as well as the majority. The Amendment would affect nobody who is married because it states
… after the commencement of this Act ….

Nobody in favour of the Bill need vote against it for that reason. If hon. Members are aware of present marriages which should, perhaps, be dissolved, they can support the Amendment because of that reference to the commencement of the Measure. My object is to enable people who desire to do so to enter into a ceremony of marriage in accordance with their religion.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: A law is not necessary to achieve that.

Mr. English: I pointed out that one can enter into something knowing that it is not the truth. A judge once said that "the devil knoweth not the heart of man."

The Attorney-General: "The mind of man."

Mr. English: I stand corrected by the leader of the Bar. I have heard people—entering into a religious ceremony of marriage—say, "One can always get a divorce if the marriage does not work out." In the Amendment I am trying to provide the possibility for individuals who wish to do otherwise to do what they wish with reasonable certainty that both parties will abide by their original wish.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) explain the position of such a marriage where one of the parties subsequently apostatises? Some people alter their religious beliefs. What would be the position when one or other changed his or her mind?

Mr. English: I should say the position is quite simple. In accordance with this Amendment—I am not talking about the beliefs of the people concerned—the original ceremony they had gone through would be valid in law.

Mr. Maude: I respect, as I think the whole House will, the motives of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who moved this Amendment. Nevertheless—and I say at once that I am one who on religious grounds is antipathetic to relaxation of the laws relating to divorce—I cannot feel that he has helped the cause of those who feel strongly about divorce by confusing two quite different things. I feel bound to say this because there is grave danger


that the argument could become confused.
The hon. Member started his argument by saying that one can get married in one of two ways; one can enter either a religious ceremony or a civil contract. I understand that one cannot get married without a civil contract being entered into whether in a church or in a register office. The law provides for the dissolution of the civil contract. If one happens to believe that the vows entered into in a religious ceremony are binding and irrevocable one is in the eyes of God, as some would say, and others would say in the eyes of one's co-religionists, still married whether the law says one is divorced or not.
This being so, it seems to confuse the two ideas, that is of the indissolubility of marriage on the ground of religious vows sworn before God in front of an altar and the indissolubility of marriage because one has entered a civil contract for which the law provides redress and a method of relaxing the contract. That is to get into hopeless confusion. The only grounds on which I can see an argument for this case—strangely enough the hon. Member did not advance them—are that those who were of a strong religious persuasion and had thought it worth while to signify their intention to enter into a lifelong contract of marriage by making vows in accordance with a religious ceremony would be more likely to retrieve an apparently irretrievable marriage than those who took the matter more lightly, inadvisedly and wantonly and entered only a civil contract.
The courts might reasonably say that people of a strong religious persuasion who had vowed in terms of their religion in a church, to remain faithful to one another and not to break their contract were the better bet for, let us say, the marriage doctor to patch up and put together again than those who had no such feelings at all.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Member did me the courtesy of interrupting me, so perhaps I may return the courtesy. I am sure he knows that Clause 2(3) says:
If the court is satisfied on the evidence of any such fact as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, then, unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably….

I should have thought the point the hon. Member is making was one which the judges would take into account.

Mr. Maude: I was coming to that point. It seems that these are almost the only grounds on which it is permissible or logical to allow the concept of the religious contract, the religious ceremony, to enter into what we are discussing here, which is the dissolution of the civil contract. It might well be argued that the court should take into account the nature of the religious ceremony and the religious vows which were made by the parties to the marriage and that the court might well conclude that there was still hope for a marriage where the parties were of strong religious views and perhaps were still in communion with their church. I am fortified in that belief by the hon. Member's statement that this is a factor which the court would be obliged to take into account. This is the only kind of basis on which the Amendment could be put forward. As I believe it to have been provided for elsewhere, as the hon. Member has said, I find it very difficult to support the Amendment in its present form.

Mr. Delargy: In considering the Amendment it is essential to consider the radical implications of the Bill. The Bill makes a complete departure from the Christian understanding of marriage. I think we are all agreed on that, because the Christian understanding of marriage is that it is a contract exclusive, binding and indissoluble. This is not my opinion. It is a statement of fact.

Mr. John Mendelson: My hon. Friend cannot advance it as a statement of fact. I was visited last night by a clergyman from my constituency who urged me to stay to support the Bill. He said that the Church of England supports the Bill and does not regard it as a radical departure from the Christian understanding to marriage.

Mr. Delargy: I am surprised that the Church of England supports the Bill. The Archbishop of Canterbury does not, and other Churches do not. I do not want to argue about this matter. I am not in favour of the Amendment. The Christian understanding of marriage, as it has been known for 2,000 years, no matter what was said to my hon. Friend last night, has been that it is a contract


exclusive between two persons, binding and indissoluble. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong. I am giving the facts.

Mr. Mendelson: It is not a fact.

Mr. Delargy: I do not care how persistent my hon. Friend is. He says it is not a fact. My statement that for 2,000 years this was the Christian-held view of marriage is a statement of fact.

Mr. Mendelson: indicated assent.

Mr. Delargy: This view of marriage is no longer generally held. This is a fact we must face. I keep on using the word "fact". We must live with this fact. The Bill recognises and emphasises that plain fact. There seems to be little purpose in trying to write into the Bill qualifications which are religious in character and which can only be verified in a religious context.
On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that it could be suggested that "the facts" referred to in page 2, line 5, which it would be the duty of the court to examine should include religious views about the nature of marriage. For example, the fact that there had been a religious ceremony might be put in evidence as proof of the acceptance of marriage as indissoluble. We must recognise that the Christian view of marriage can no longer be imposed by legislation, but we can properly demand that the religious contract—religious as well as civil contract as many people believe—should be considered when the court seeks to make a decision.
We have enough duties and responsibilities of our own without taking other people's duties upon our shoulders. I believe that, since the Bill destroys altogether the Christian understanding of marriage, the onus is all the heavier on the Churches to educate their people effectively and to provide in a religious ceremony an unambiguous affirmation of what a Christian should intend. I maintain, however, that that is the duty of the Churches and not our duty.

Mr. Wood: There are some reasons which I should have urged in our debate on new Clause 9, had not the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) decided to move the Closure

when I stood up, against the imposition of the principle of indissolubility in certain marriages. I am bound to say that the kind of reasons urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) make me anxious about the proposal of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
In particular, I think that all of us would be anxious that men and women should not be deterred by the irrevocable distinction which the Amendment seeks to make between marriages which take place according to a religious ceremony and marriages other than in church. We all realise that men and women who choose to be married in church are required to make solemn vows concerning the indissolubility of their marriage.
Those men and women, however, are not alone. Those who marry under other auspices are also required to recognise that marriage is a lifelong union. Although the recognition that is made in marriages elsewhere than in church may lack the seriousness of a religious vow, which is, perhaps, undertaken in the presence of many witnesses, I should be greatly disturbed if I thought that the undertaking made by others outside church was likely to be devalued.
One of the fears of those who oppose the Bill is that its provisions for easier divorce, as I see it, will, or may, increase the number of husbands and wives who will enter lightly into marriage knowing that it can be dissolved ever more easily when the going gets hard. I am only too ready to admit that this is only a fear, but I believe that it would be the very likely result of acceptance of the Amendment. I hope to show that more people, not fewer, would be tempted to enter marriage without a firm intention of indissolubility.
If the Amendment were written into the Bill, more and more people, when faced with the decision of whether to be married in church, might be tempted to play safe. We can all speak from personal experience. I think that many of us have found the entry into matrimony an alarming business. To undertake solemnly to bind oneself for life to a woman or a man, however delightful we might find her or him in the heady days before taking the plunge, needs courage and determination.
Although I, like thousands of others, having been lucky, have found that a joint recognition of indissolubility has been a constant source of strength and security, I am fearful that thousands of others, uncertain of what the future may hold, might wish to opt for a less formidable obligation.
Those of us who believe that the sacramental nature of marriage is of immense significance must view with some alarm anything which might discourage the fainthearted from seeking the blessing of the Church on their union. For many, such a reluctance to be married in accordance with the rites of the Church would have the effect, as we all know, of cutting them off in other ways from other benefits which the Church could give them.
6.0 a.m.
This Amendment is an attempt, as was the new Clause we discussed earlier—there can be no doubt about it—to create two categories of marriage, the indissoluble and the dissoluble. Christians, when they get married, may indeed believe—and I hope that most do—that their marriage is indissoluble and that, whatever it may say, the law of the land has no particular relevance to their own situation. But this, it seems to me, as it seems to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, is very different from so framing our legislation as to provide one set of rules for those married in accordance with a religious ceremony and another set for everyone else. That is why I find it impossible to give my wholehearted support to the hon. Gentleman's attempt to enshrine this distinction in law.
None the less, I am bound to be concerned by the provisions of the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend, which aim to subordinate the most solemn promises, the sincerity of which are in no doubt, to the whim of one party to a marriage availing himself or herself of what I have already described as the Bill's one radical provision, so that, notwithstanding any convictions of the respondent or any vows which the respondent may have taken and however sincerely they may be held, he or she can obtain a decree after the lapse of a certain period of time.
It seems to me that that provision has been put forward in total neglect of one

of the most important traditions of both the nation and Parliament. A great deal is written and said today about respect for minorities. Not long ago the House of Commons, rightly, in my view, refused to move against the practice of ritual slaughter in defence of that very principle. But here we have a situation in which the supporters of the Bill propose to set at naught one of the most solemn promises that a man or woman can make, and if the present Amendment is defeated—as I believe it ought to be—the promise to remain together "till death us do part" is now to be re-written under the Bill so that in future it will be "until we are parted by the court in accordance with the instructions of Mr. Jones and Mr. Abse"
Nor is that the whole of the minority which the Bill proposes to persecute. There must be a fair number of men and women, though married with no religious ceremony, whose intention at the time of their marriage to remain married for life continues as strong as ever in the heart of one partner at the time of its proposed dissolution. I wonder whether we can really be right—perhaps this is the moment to consider these questions very carefully—to decide that that honest intention should be violated by allowing it to be overruled by the partner who may once have shared it, and shared it most sincerely, but who shares it no longer. I can think of few fields of human activity in which we should allow two people to make solemn promises to one another and then allow the one who wants to keep those promises to be sacrificed to the one who wants to break them.
The House is only too well aware that I am no Parliamentary draftsman, but I have attempted to express on the Notice Paper in the next two Amendments the only means, apart from the deletion of paragraph (e), which I can conceive of as giving proper protection to the compulsory divorcee.
For the reason I have given, I think it wrong to try, as the Amendment seeks to do, to confine this protection to those who have been married in accordance with a religious ceremony. I do not believe it right to try to squeeze the tenets of religion into the straightjacket of the law, as the Amendment seeks to do. I greatly prefer to try to discover a means by which a court could have in the most


distressing cases a discretion to decide whether or not the convictions expressed by the respondent are of superior weight to prevail against the wish of the petitioner to bring the marriage to an end. It will be to this end that I shall direct my argument on the next Amendment.

Mr. John Mendelson: I am interested mainly in two aspects of the Bill that have caused me, as they have probably caused many other hon. Members, the greatest concern. One is the position of the wife after a petitioner has succeeded, and the other is the profoundly-held views of deeply religious people.
Although I think that the other Amendments which the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has tabled are the more important of this section of Amendments, it is because we have now reached the religious question that I want to make some brief comments. The right hon. Gentleman made a point of telling the House that there are many people who are not religious but equally enter marriage with the firm intention that it should be a union for life. I was glad that he did so, because I thought that there was an implication in what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said in moving the Amendment that this intention was not present in people who were not religious and not deeply devoted to their religious opinions but had another philosophy of life. I think that this is a mistaken view. Even any trace of such feeling cannot be accepted.

Mr. English: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood me. I would think it more normal for people to do the opposite.

Mr. Mendelson: As long as there is not that implication, I rest content.
When my hon. Friend said later that this was his opinion on the Amendment, I was reconciled to everything he said. But it may not be accepted that everybody who is deeply religious or active in one of the Churches holds that this Bill is a radical departure from the Christian concept of marriage. To the knowledge of every hon. Member, there are many people in several Christian Churches who do not hold this to be a radical departure from the Christian concept of marriage.
This brings me to what I consider to be the most important point in this part of the debate. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that is why I said that this is one of the two parts in the Bill that caused me most concern—with regard to the views of those groups of people which he called minorities, but which are substantial sections of the community, who are worried about the change that this would make in their whole lives, of which marriage is one part, a very important part, if there were a serious inroad into this part of their lives. It is something the House must take very seriously into consideration.
If I were not satisfied with what we were doing to protect their views I would not vote for Third Reading, just as I would not vote for it if the position of the wife was not properly protected after the petitioner had succeeded against her.
6.15 a.m.
The right hon. Gentleman was lacking one point. I put that to him with humility, because I know how deeply he has considered these matters, and his wide knowledge of the subject. The point that was lacking was when he dealt with the position that would arise if one of the two partners still cherishes the other, cherishes the marriage and cannot reconcile himself or herself to the fact that it has come to an end, and believes, therefore, that the other partner should, ipso facto, never be able to succeed with his or her petition. I thought that there was an implied and rigid obligation in an agreement or contract that can be applied to other circumstances between human beings but cannot be applied to marriage. What I consider to be the cardinal principle of the Bill and the reason why it has received such wide support is that the continuation of the life together is not possible unless both partners retain the view advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. That was the important and serious flaw in the argument. If it is not possible that it can be continued unless and until both partners are convinced that it can be continued, then his main argument falls to the ground because in trying to protect the view of one partner who cannot reconcile himself or herself to the fact that the marriage is irretrievably broken down we should have to condemn the other partner who finds that he


cannot continue with the marriage. The awful thing is that these people, when they have to go on, have a life of misery because they consider themselves to be living in sin. This has often been said to me.
On those grounds, the principle of the Bill, far from doing any harm to those whom the right hon. Gentleman wants to see protected, would be a greater protection for them and their sincerely-held views. It would also advance the possibility of making a break, and that is why I feel that the Amendment should not be resisted.

Mr. Clegg: This has been a most interesting debate, but, as ever, we keep returning to the major root of the difficulties in the Bill, in Clause 2(1)(e). I have been impressed by the sincere arguments put forward for the Amendment. The debate has shown the concern arising where one of the partners to a religious marriage loses his or her faith. If they both retain their faith there is no problem and the Clause is unnecessary, since neither will take civil action to end the marriage.
The difficulty arises when one of these persons loses faith. It would be terrible for a man or woman who has been divorced against his or her will. Does this Amendment help? Does it have a practical purpose? I do not believe it will help, because it is not a practical proposition.
Under it we are laying an impossible burden on the courts. Judges are men of differing view, and we are asking them to decide whether this is genuine. The judge is used to judging on the facts. That is one thing. But to get into people's minds to find out whether, at the time of marriage, they had a true realisation of the tenets of their religion is a difficult and impractical proposition.
It would be all very well if the judge were considering a case in which the partners had married at a mature age. But suppose the couple married at 17 or 18, as young people so often do nowadays? If the judge had to ask them whether at the time they really understood the tenets of the faith and that it was to be a lifelong contract, he would be in an intolerable position.
I believe that an answer must be found to the problem of the partner divorced against his or her will if I am to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, but this Amendment is not the answer I am seeking.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I cannot support the Amendment because I believe that, whether a marriage has been solemnised in a church or not, divorce is not a good thing. Divorce signifies failure of love and of generosity, and in attempting to draw up divorce laws or amend them we have to recognise that we are dabbling in a world of failure. I am equally certain that if we pass this Bill, with or without these Amendments, we shall be adding to the world, and to our own country in particular, another failure. The cardinal principle enshrined in the law of our land from time immemorial has been that a person must not be punished for not having done wrong. With this Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing not the Bill but Amendment No. 10 and he must adduce arguments as to why he is supporting or not supporting the Amendment. He must do so not in a wide sense but in the narrower sense of the Amendment.

Mr. Mahon: But other hon. Members have directed their remarks to many of the principles embodied in the Bill and have linked their comments on the Amendment with what is happening. That has been the general tenor of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is attempting to redress a wrong with the Amendment on behalf of people who suffer in divorce but only a particular section of people—those who had their marriages solemnised in church. I do not agree with him. I say that the wronged partner, if the sanctity of marriage is to be maintained, must not be coerced by legislation. Only through death should a partner be lost without consent. Divorce by compulsion is a denial of marriage itself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again pursuing the general


argument about the Bill. He must relate his remarks more specifically to the Amendment.

Mr. Mahon: That is the argument I am endeavouring to develop. I want to pay close attention to what is in the Bill, which affects very intimately the lives of people whose marriages have been solemnised in church. From that point of view I can postpone my remarks to a later period in the debate. I can speak at length on this matter on Third Reading, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir. I thought that what I was saying was particularly germane to the Amendment, but I will defer to your ruling and postpone my remarks until later on.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: I support the Amendment, and indeed I have added my name to it. It is a remarkable feature of the law of the land that the contract of marriage is one of the few that the courts do not enforce but repudiate. People can enter into almost any sort of contract and the courts will enforce them. They can be life-long contracts.
Let us take as an example a mortgage on a house. A few thousand pounds can be borrowed from a building society and one can agree to pay it back over 25 years. That contract is binding on the person concerned, as well as on the building society, for 25 years. But if one goes to a church, with all the solemnity of a religious ceremony, and enters into vows to remain married to a woman, and she to you, for life, not only is that a contract that the courts will not enforce, but the courts cannot enforce it.
All that needs to happen under the Bill is that if one of the parties goes to the court and satisfies is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, the court will grant a decree. There are some other contracts that the courts do not enforce. Generally speaking, they are contracts which contain an element of illegality or contracts which are considered to be contrary to public policy. It is remarkable that a contract to marry should be lumped in with contracts of that sort. Many people find it offensive that it is possible for a couple to go to church and enter into solemn vows and then, a few years later, one of them can

go to the court to repudiate those vows altogether and the court is obliged to dissolve the marriage in defiance of the contract that has been made.
The Amendment applies only to future marriages, marriages entered into after the Bill comes into force. This Bill brings into law for the first time compulsory divorce. The proposal is that in future, when this legislation becomes the law of the land, it will be possible for people who do not believe in compulsory divorce to get married in a way that will prevent compulsory divorce. They do not have to do it. If they want the sort of marriage than can end in the divorce court at any time, they can get married in a register office; but if they want a lasting marriage, they can get married in church.
I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. It would remove from our law the farce that exists—and, if the Bill is passed, will exist more than ever in future—that enables people to go through a solemn ceremony in church and then a few years later, as is the case in one out of every eight marriages, to repudiate it in a court.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I want to repudiate something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). I believe that every marriage is a marriage between two people, whether the ceremony is conducted in a registry office, is by mutual consent, or is solemnised in a church of any kind. It makes little difference where a marriage ceremony takes place, but when an hon. Member says that the Christian concept of marriage is no longer that it is a lifelong union, I ask: when did anyone ever attend at any church in the country where the indications and the outwards signs of what is called the inward grace of the sacrament were not so clear to the most unintelligent person that this was a lifelong union?

Mr. John Mendelson: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was listening to what I was saying. He is, of course, always fair, but may I correct any suggestion that I said that the Christian churches do not regard marriage any more as a lifelong association. I said nothing of the kind, as my hon. Friend will see from HANSARD. I said that it is my certain knowledge, and the knowledge


of other hon. Members, that many people active in Christian Churches do not regard the Bill as a departure from the concept of marriage that they support and that they are, therefore, supporting the Bill.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I do not understand that sort of language. It is a bit too much of the double talk.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Mahon: I do not understand it.

An Hon. Member: Then sit down.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman should not push his luck. We have been particularly generous with some Members of the Labour Party. We try to show them the charity which we have been asked to show the one towards the other, so I want no more of that. I have treated every Member of this House with respect on every occasion when I have been on my feet. I will say what I want to say, whether the Labour Party or the Government like it or not.
I only want to intervene briefly, but I keep being led away into saying things that I do not want to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) said that it is the duty of the Churches to instruct people in the tenets of their faith. I wish that we were able to be assured of people knowing the law as well as the tenets of their faith.
Having established that the Christian concept of marriage is still what it always was, I will bother the House no more.

Mr. Percival: I have no wish to take part in the discussion about the merits or demerits of the Amendment. I seek clarification on one point which has been raised which I think is relevant to the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) adopted the proposition that much of what is sought to be covered by the Amendment is already covered in Clause 2(3).

Mr. Richard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman wags his head. I will give way to him

in a moment. I have risen in the hope of clarifying the point. The impression conveyed, and I think accepted and adopted by two hon. Gentlemen opposite, was that the questions which would arise under the Amendment would arise and be material under Clause 2(3).
6.30 a.m.
I have never heard any suggestion like this before, and in the short time that one has had to consider this it appears that it is just conceivable that in very special circumstances such considerations might arise under subsection (3). But it would be pushing the argument too far to suggest that the considerations raised in the Amendment could be relevant and therefore a subject for the consideration of the court under subsection (3), save in the most exceptional circumstances.
I had hoped to put this question to the Attorney-General, but I appreciate that, like the rest of us, he cannot sit forever in one place, and I do not think it would be fair to put it to the Minister who has taken his place. The hon. Gentleman may regard that as a kindness to be repaid one day. I think that the matter should be clarified by the promoter of the Bill because of what has been said about the misunderstanding in the minds of some hon. Members, and I hope that that will be done at some stage.

Mr. Brian Walden: I intervene only because I know that the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has said as much as he wants to say, or perhaps not too much, on Amendments Nos. 24 and 25, and although this point is best put here, it might be relevant to those two Amendments.
We have heard a number of objections to the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend, and I agree with some of them. I agree with the objections of the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) who talked about the difficulties of construction, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), but I am on a very different point.
I doubt very much whether, even if none of those objections was valid, it would be wise for the legislature to enact this Amendment from the point of


view of the relationship it would establish between the State and its citizens. One of the difficulties about marriage is that it is not simply something which concerns the State. It is not simply something which relates to a contract. It is, naturally enough, in all Western societies tied up with certain religious convictions. Therefore, there has always been an ambivalence in Western society about marriage in respect of it being partially the responsibility of the State and partially being tied up with certain religious beliefs.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks carefully at the Amendment, and indeed at the general tenor of his argument, he will see that it will do one thing. It will, and the State will have done this, discriminate against a man as against the generality of his fellow citizens, on the basis of a religious conviction which he once held. He will have given away his right to do certain things. Whether those things are good or bad, whether some of my hon. Friends are right, or others are right, is not really the point. The point is that simply because a man had once believed a certain religious doctrine he will have given away his right to take a certain course of action. In that sense it must be discrimination, and in that sense it cannot be a good principle to embody in the law.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) has said, and I shall try to be as brief as he was.
I belong to the same church as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). I am not sure that what he adduced as a fact is a fact. The hon. Gentleman said that the indissolubility of marriage is the universal view of all Christians. Strange as it may seem, I think that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) had a point, because, although I have not been able to check my references, I think there have been times when divorce has been recognised by the Orthodox Church. Different views are held about this by people of sincere Christian belief, and also by the official spokesmen, to put it no higher, of different Christian bodies.
Having said that, may I say that I entirely accept the view of marriage of the hon. Member for Thurrock. It has been said very often in these debates that it is not for Christians, who may or may not be a minority in the community, to seek to impose their view of marriage or anything else through the Legislature, through the State. But the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints was quite right; he said that this question of marriage was one of the overlapping questions. Education is one, and marriage is another. It is a question in which the Church and the State are involved.
In this Bill we have got to be zealous to see that we do not now get the reverse position whereby those people who hold sincere religious views are disadvantaged. It is not right, or possible, that anyone should seek to impose a religious view of marriage on those who do not hold that view. At the same time, we have now reached the position where it is necessary to have regard to those who hold sincere Christian opinions and who may be forced into a divorce against their conscience. But that matter is probably best taken care of by the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) than by the Amendment which has been forcefully and sincerely advanced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
That latter Amendment states:
The court shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably if the respondent satisfies the court … that … granting the petition would conflict with tenets of the religion according to the rites of which the marriage ceremony took place …".
I agree that the object of that Amendment is to do everything possible to fortify the sanctity of religious marriage. Yet at the same time it would not be proper for the Legislature to insist that whether or not the court should give a decree should be decided by the religious views of the parties to a marriage—views which were no longer held by those parties.

Mr. Abse: Since everything that can be said for and against has been said, I will add only a few words, following the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I agree with


him. To suggest that the problem could be solved by subsection (3)—although there may be some very exceptional circumstances—would be misleading the House.
If one turns to the new Clause, that is a different matter. It will be recalled that under the new Clause, which is the substitute for Clause 4, any respondent, whatever the grounds upon which the Petitioner has proceeded, can oppose the grant of a decree if he can show, as a starting point, that it will result not only in grave financial hardship but in all other hardships. Again, I have no wish to exaggerate, but if a woman who was a prominent member of the Mother's Union were being divorced without her consent, I have no doubt that she could put this into issue, although it would then be possible for all the circumstances to be taken into account, as adumbrated in new Clause 1. Although it would be exceptional, strongly held beliefs would, I am sure, be taken into account when the court was deciding whether the hardship was disproportionate.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Sir Cyril Black: I was at first attracted by the Amendment, which is one of the most interesting and important before us, and I am indebted to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) for having given us that opportunity to face up to these issues. I fully share his objectives. But I am now considerably more doubtful whether this is the right way to achieve the purpose which we both have in mind. The Amendment is an honest effort to deal with people whose consciences are likely to be oppressed if the Bill becomes law in its present form. I am always anxious to preserve bodies of people, even if small minorities, whose deeply-hold convictions may be affected by legislation.
Many people hold, sincerely and tenaciously, that marriage is a lifelong bond between a man and a woman. Their existence in the community and their convictions must somehow be recognised and taken into account. There are many such people, to whom the mere

thought of being involved in a divorce, even involuntarily, would be deeply hurtful to their consciences and deepest convictions. I hope that we can find some means of meeting the situation of people of that kind.
6.45 a.m.
Of course, these people are protected under the present law, and have been protected under the laws of England for centuries, and any married man or woman has at present this conviction, that if he or she avoids matrimonial offence, then he or she cannot, against his or her will, be involved in a divorce. That is, therefore, an absolute safeguard, which is at present possessed by the kind of people for whom we are trying to find some protection.
Under Clause 2(1)(e), however, this situation is completely altered, and the safeguard which these people have possessed in the past will cease to exist if this Bill gets on to the Statute Book, and anyone holding the convictions which I have described will be liable in the future, without having given any cause for offence to his or her matrimonial partner, without having been guilty of the matrimonial offence, to be brought into court and faced with the very real risk of the marriage being dissolved and of being involved in a divorce. That is the situation which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West has been trying by his Amendment to avoid.
The point has been made in this debate that all marriages in this country are civil marriages, and that is the truth but not the whole truth, because, unlike some other countries—I believe that France is one—we in this country license places of worship for marriage, and we do, therefore, as a State, make it possible for people to solemnise their marriages in a place of worship, and many people wish to do so because they profoundly believe, as a matter of religious conviction, the promises which they are required to make in connection with their marriages; they do in fact literally believe that they are entering into a bond which will last "till death us do part". Of course, these people are going to be greatly concerned in the future if in this Bill no provision can be made for their circumstances.
Frankly, I find it difficult to know what is the right answer to this problem.


I think that we must bear in mind, in spite of all that has been said about the difficulties of this Amendment, that, after all, it is an option which is being offered to people: nothing more than that. No one need choose this form of ceremony and this form of marriage. It is available purely to those who wish to avail themselves of it. But even when this is borne in mind I do see the disadvantages which have been pointed out by other speakers. I am certainly moving towards the view that probably the better solution is to be found in the Amendment which has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who, I am sure, has exactly the same concern about this matter as I have, but who has suggested a different remedy for the problem.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), in the very interesting speech—so I thought—which he made on this matter, referred to the position of people who have religious convictions and who are living, as it is popularly called, in sin because they have been unable to obtain a divorce and are most anxious that this Bill should pass so that they may obtain divorce and bring themselves presumably—in their own view, at any rate—out of sin and into grace. I myself cannot see that there can be any validity in their belief in that respect, because if they hold the Christian belief in regard to marriage, an Act of Parliament which may release them from a legally binding obligation will not by any means release them from the obligation for which they will answer when they have to stand before that tribunal the sovereignty of which is higher even than the sovereignty of this House of Parliament.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Wood: I beg to move, Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 3, at end insert:
(2) In considering a petition for divorce under subsection (1)(e) above, the court shall not grant a decree unless it is satisfied, after a full inquiry into all the facts, that the respondent has no good reason, on religious or other grounds, to object to the dissolution of the marriage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient at the same time, to take Amendment No. 25, in line 4, leave out 'a' and insert 'any other'.

Mr. Wood: The House will be aware of the very serious concern which I have felt—and I have discovered throughout the night that it is shared by a good many others—about the proposal which is made in subsection (1)(e) of the Clause, which most of us would agree was the only substantial change in the Bill. As long as that subsection remains in the Bill, it will be impossible for us to give a perfect protection to those who are to have divorce forced upon them. Various attempts have been made to provide some degree of protection—we have just discussed one—and some of us have given our reasons, which have varied according to the proposal, why the proposals advanced tonight either would not afford adequate protection or would attempt to do so by violating other principles which we have thought equally important.
I believe that the wrong done to one partner to a marriage by allowing him or her to be forced into a dissolution of the marriage against his or her will would in some cases—I have no wish to overstate the argument—be so grave that it is essential that Parliament should try to find some means to give protection to him or her. If we do not do so, we shall be subordinating the natural and justified expectations of all to the convenience of a few, and if we do that without giving any protection we shall be responsible, in some cases at least, for the creation of a very great injustice. Many hon. Members, although supporting the Bill, have mentioned that as a serious reservation in their support, and I sincerely hope that they will be prepared to join me in what to my mind is a sensible attempt to provide some measure of protection to those who might otherwise suffer grievously under the new proposal.
The Group which was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in its Report "Putting Asunder", accepted the new principle of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Group agreed that the living separately of a husband and wife over a period of years offers a very strong presumption of such a breakdown. The Group was prepared to agree, in this and other cases in which irretrievable breakdown could be inferred, that it should be made possible to bring such marriages to an end. But


the Group felt—and this is very important—that it would be right for cases of breakdown of marriage to be carefully examined before a court had the right to bring the marriages to an end.
In common with other hon. Members, I have studied carefully the Report of the Law Commission which was published in November 1966, Cmnd. 3123, to which this question had been referred by the Lord Chancellor in the light of the Report, "Putting Asunder". We read in paragraph 59 of that Report:
… we have doubts whether it really is desirable for the law to require positive proof of breakdown by an inquest in all cases …
I find the reasons for that statement—I will not detail them; hon. Members will be familiar with them—generally convincing. However, I have wondered whether a full inquest into the causes of breakdown in some cases might be desirable.
In the debates on this matter last year I suggested that in cases where, for example, young children were involved; where the consent to the dissolution of one party was in doubt; and, above all, in petitions under subsection (1)(e), there might be a strong argument for a full inquiry into the causes of breakdown to ensure that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done, to all the interests concerned.
I am aware of the provisions in subsection (2), and another of my Amendments relates to them. Section (2) is likely to be a formality; it would require the court to inquire as far as it reasonably can into certain matters. The sponsors realise that it would be a formality, for the very reasons given by the Law Commission, who say in paragraph 58(k) of its Report, in suggesting that wholesale inquests into all cases would be wrong:
Court hearings would take far longer. Undefended cases at present constitute 93 per cent. of the total and take about ten minutes each. Under the suggested procedure"—
that is, the full inquest—
the length of trials could not at best be less than trebled. Present resources are fully extended to achieve about 35,000 divorces a year.
It would, therefore, be impracticable to extend full inquests to every case, and to require them would soon bring the work of the courts to a standstill. For

this reason my proposal is modest, more modest than I have proposed on other occasions. It relates to the small proportion of petitions for divorce which will be brought under subsection (1)(e). In the nature of these cases, they will be defended and they will join the small proportion of cases which are at present defended.
My proposal would allow men and women who it is suggested should be divorced against their will to show, if they can, good reason why a dissolution of marriage would, in their case and in their circumstances, be a grave injustice.
It may be argued that an intolerable burden would be placed on the courts in having to decide the inexact question of whether the respondent had good reason to refuse a dissolution. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who is not at present in his place, mentioned the question of conscientious objection to military service. Would the task which I am suggesting should be imposed on the courts be more or less difficult that the task of deciding whether or not a man has good reason conscientiously to object to military service? I have never sat on such a tribunal, but I imagine that cases of this type have presented difficult problems.
As Parliament has rightly provided in the past an opportunity for the citizen to put forward his conscientious objections to military service, the House should be willing to provide similar opportunities to those who seek to prove that they have equally strong objections to being divorced from a marriage partner to whom they had every reason to believe they were joined for life.
The effect of my two Amendments would be to provide that petitions for divorce under subsection (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) should be subject merely to the duty of the court, so far as it reasonably can, to inquire into the facts alleged by the petitioner, but in cases under paragraph (e) the court would need to go further and be satisfied that the respondent had no good reason either on religious or other grounds to object to the dissolution of the marriage.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Richard: I have some sympathy with the point which I think the right


hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has tried to cover. Unfortunately, I do not see how it is possible to square this circle. He is asking the courts to engage in an inquiry and in effect make a valid judgment on the quality or otherwise of the objection to being divorced. This would impose an almost impossible task on the courts in the sheer practicality of carrying out the task. More important, how in these circumstances can they judge?
Who is to say what is a "good reason" for objecting to the dissolution of the marriage? If one says that there is to be a subjective standard—if all that a judge has to do is to decide whether or not the respondent conscientiously believes he has a good reason—that totally negates the whole purpose of paragraph (e). In that event all that the respondent has to do is to satisfy the court that, "I, the respondent to this petition, believe for what I consider to be good reasons—my own subjective reasons—that I have a conscientious objection to being divorced". In those circumstances the court could not grant a decree.
If the test is to be an objective and not a subjective test, is it suggested that the judge should attempt to weigh the quality of the conscientiousness of the objection the respondent has to the divorce being granted? Again this seems to impose an almost intolerable burden on the judge. The distinction between conscientious objection to military service and this type of case is quite simple. In a case of conscientious objection to military service all the tribunal has to decide is whether (a) there is such an objection, and (b) whether it is a genuine one. Under this Amendment one would have to go on, unless one is totally to negate the whole purpose of paragraph (e), to lay on the judge the duty of judging the quality of the conscientious objection which the respondent holds. I do not know how a judge could make that value judgment. Would it be purely on religious grounds or because someone said, "I like the status of being married and I have what I think is a good conscientious objection"? The number of bloody-minded spouses who would be caught under paragraph (e) must be very small. Most spouses who found them- 
selves in the position of those the right hon. Gentleman is trying to protect would themselves believe that they had a valid conscientious objection to being divorced. I do not see how the Amendment would solve that dilemma. If the judgment is to be a subjective one, it tears up paragraph (e) and takes out the whole concept which the Bill is specifically designed to deal with, namely, the situation in which the parties have been separated and one party does not consent to the divorce. Therefore, to that extent the Amendment is, if not in intention at any rate in fact, a wrecking one. If the test is to be an objective one, I know not upon what basis a court can arrive at the decision. For these reasons, I oppose the Amendment.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I have difficulty in following the argument advanced against the reasonable case presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said that if the Amendment were accepted the judges would be presented with an insoluble problem. This was not the argument we heard upon the previous Amendment. The excellent Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was resisted by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on the ground that it was not necessary: if a woman could prove that she was a member of the Mothers' Union, this would be a relevant factor for the judge to take into account. The hon. Member for Barons Court did not think that mattered very much.
The supporters of the Bill must sort out whether it is relevant or irrelevant that the person should be following some kind of religious faith. The hon. Member for Pontypool thought that a member of the Mothers' Union would be home and dry. There are other ways in which people testify to their religious belief. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of our judges to establish whether a person appearing before them is a genuine and sincere believer in the religious belief he professes to follow or is an imposter seeking to shelter behind a pretended belief in a religion to inflict pain and hardship upon the petitioner.
The problem is not as difficult as is suggested. Many people hold strong


religious beliefs upon the question of the sanctity of marriage. The House would do such people a grave dis-service if it put them in the position where their views were to be ignored. How can we rely upon the word of those who put the Bill forward when they say, on the one hand, that they have the greatest regard for the rights of such people and their interests will be safeguarded, if they happen to belong to the Mothers' Union, and in the next breath say that it is a problem which is incapable of solution?

Mr. Richard: I can only assume that either the hon. Gentleman has not read the Amendment or has not listened to the debates. His description of the arguments advanced on this and the previous Amendment is a travesty of the arguments. Will he be good enough before continuing his speech to look at the wording of the Amendment and tell me how a judge would assess what is a "good reason, on religious or other grounds".

Sir S. McAdden: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that I have not listened to this and the previous debate. I have. Had I not been here for the debate upon the previous Amendment, I could not have described what the hon. Member for Pontypool had said. That was exactly what he said. It is within the recollection of hon. Members that he said that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was not all necessary because the interests of the people affected would be adequately safeguarded since membership of the Mothers' Union was a relevant factor which the divorce judge must take into consideration in coming to a decision.
I have simply drawn the attention of the House to the great divergence which exists between the supporters of the Bill on this issue. If the hon. Member for Barons Court differs from his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, I am not surprised. It is wrong to pretend that because I have pointed this out I have not listened to the debate. On the contrary, I could not have pointed it out unless I had listened to the debate.
Therefore, I support my right hon. Friend's Amendment. It is right that we should seek every possible means of protecting those with sincerely-held religious beliefs and not simply cast them aside

as of no importance or as being incapable of being assessed by the learned judges. They are much brighter than the hon. Member for Barons Court thinks. I am sure that they are capable of coming to a judgment upon a person who comes before them as to whether the beliefs which that person claims to hold are genuinely and sincerely held.
Those who sincerely and honestly feel themselves aggrieved by the threat of this legislation will stand up in the courts—all we ask is that they be given the chance—to prove their sincerity and honesty and they will have greater faith in the judges to be able to assess their sincerity than the hon. Member seems to think.

Mr. Walden: I intervene not because I in any way doubt the sincerity of the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who moved the Amendment, or think that from a moral viewpoint its purposes are necessarily wrong, but because I want to press again, since reference was made to it, the point which I made, probably more validly, on the previous Amendment, which relates to this Amendment also.
I argued on the last Amendment that it would be discriminatory against a man or woman who had once held a religious conviction. The case is less clear on Amendment No. 24, but it is relevant. We are arguing about how a court would construe "good reason on religious grounds." I have nothing to say about "or other grounds". I am speaking simply about religious grounds.
When one stops to think of what a court would do if it came down to the practicalities of that, two cases become apparent at once. If, for instance, the couple had been married, say, according to the rites of the Catholic Church, necessarily the party who did not wish the decree to be granted would start with one clear advantage. Obviously, the marriage had been contracted under the tenents of the faith, which does not accept divorce.
Equally clearly, however, if it were obvious that a marriage had taken place when one party might have had intense religious views—presumably, the party petitioning against the decree being granted—but the other party had said before the marriage, "I have no belief


in the religious significance of marriage. I have no moral views on the subject. I will even put it in writing for your and deposit it at the bank", as a judge would have to try to assess these things the case of the petitioner would be infinitely weaker. I would think it unlikely that the judge would consider that the petitioner had good reason on religious grounds as he had been forewarned that his prospective marriage partner did not have such views and knew the risk which he was taking.
Therefore, I press on the right hon. Gentleman again, although I know it is not his intention, that this is not a bad moral principle. It is not a bad rule for people to observe who belong to churches, but a bad principle for the State to impose in legislation. It is bound to mean that if one wants a divorce it is an advantage never to have had any religious conviction about marriage at all, and a disadvantage to have had one at some stage.
Therefore, with due respect to my old friend who has just spoken—if I may call him that—the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), even though the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) may have been answered, even though they are not valid—though I do not think so—I say again that the crucial point on this group of Amendments has yet to be grasped. It is the point which the right hon. Gentleman himself made earlier when he said that we often do not want to do things which look good on the Order Paper because they conflict with other principles. One principle is that there shall be no discrimination by the State in legislation against a man for religious beliefs which he may hold or once held. That is fundamental, but it is in danger of violation by Amendment No. 24.

7.15 a.m.

Mrs. Knight: We are now at the heart and the crux and the kernel of the argument on the whole Bill. This is the sticking point for hon. Members who have conscience and thought for persons who may be hard hit by the Clause. This we cannot swallow; it is too much. All else in the Bill one could welcome and assist with one's vote, but this is too much.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) says that the Bill will encourage family stability. Impossible. If paragraph (e) remains unamended—I would rather it were deleted altogether—no one can say with truth that the Bill will encourage family stability. A totally innocent wife, who has never done the slightest harm, could be thrown over. The House of Commons would have encouraged her abandonment. It is absolutely monstrous. She may be left in a state of utter penury—that also comes under the Bill—but this Amendment would do something to help in that situation. For the House to sanction the state of affairs which would be created by the Bill as it stands would be appalling.
There are many matters to be considered before any woman is divorced against her wish, and some are covered by these Amendments. Perhaps she is at an age—50-plus—at which she would find it extremely difficult to turn to, learn a job and keep it at a time when her energies are not at their peak. Earlier tonight, one hon. Member said that he had received a large number of letters on this subject. So have I. I shall quote from three in support of the Amendment. The first says:
I beg you to try to do something to help me and other women in my position when the Divorce Reform Bill comes up in Parliament. I have been deserted by my husband for 7 years. I was married for 21 years. I had four children with him, and he now has one by the woman with whom he is living. I feel that this Bill is most unfair, as why should I suffer any more to right their wrongs, and why should I be denied the right to explain my point of view to a court as well? I have already suffered mental torture and financial difficulty through it, and I feel now that to be divorced against my will would be the last straw.
The second woman has just as much agony of mind. She wrote:
Details are immaterial and would entail a lot of explanation, but I still love my husband and have no wish to divorce him. But I know that the woman he is involved with is banking on it, though there is not likely to be any family. We were married in church over 25 years ago—I took my vows very seriously . . I have always worked very hard, and we have brought up a family of three sons.
The writer of the third letter is anxious on another count. She says:
I have today heard on the radio a disquieting comment from the Press concerning the financial provisions in the above Bill as they affect the deserted wife and families.


That is the part we are discussing. If the Amendment were passed she would also be able to state her case. She continued:
The report implies to me that the Bill is being hurried through this Session without the financial details being fully thrashed out by the Members in the House, and moreover that the provisions are inadequate and will cause much misery. For the innocent party to be forced to divorce is itself most humiliating, without signing what amounts to a financial death warrant, for no man whose wife has already been driven to court for her maintenance will behave any better when divorce is handed to him on a plate and he is free to start up elsewhere. He will not consider his first family at all. If there are grounds for the fears expressed by the newspaper the Ministry of Social Security will be hard pressed. I hope that they can bear the brunt of it. In my own case, my husband will not hesitate to take advantage of any loophole the Bill provides, and a widow's pension is involved ….
Those are three women out of a very large number who have written to me. The first had been married 21 years and had four children. The other woman has one.
Without the Amendment, and even with it, the Bill will encourage men to desert their wives, because a woman for whom a man deserts his wife will know perfectly well that with the Bill through she can force him to have a divorce so that he can be made to marry her later. I am sure that at present many women who could easily be cast in the rôle of home-breakers hesitate to get themselves into that position because they know that the law will not allow them to marry the husband whom they have stolen. But we are talking about a law which would allow exactly that. Therefore, it is no wonder that the first woman is worried.
The second woman added at the end of her letter—and this was a most important point:
Why, if you cannot be forced into marriage, should you be forced into divorce?
The third woman was dealing with the financial provisions. Under the Amendments the courts would be enabled—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not discuss the provisions of the Bill on the Amendment.

Mrs. Knight: The financial provisions are in the Amendment. Surely they are "or other grounds". This is dreadfully important to these women.

Mr. Simon Mahon: On a point of order. Does it not clearly say in the Amendment:
… respondent has no good reason, on religious or other grounds,…"?
My mind was certainly in tune with the hon. Lady's as regards the dilemma of a lady who was in exactly in the position she was trying to define.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to those words.

Mrs. Knight: This is a matter of enormous concern to women in this position. They should at least have the right to state that their position will be financially difficult if they are forced into divorce. I have a letter written by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Overseas Development, on 28th May, dealing with whether an estranged wife can have a pension. A most important paragraph says:
Mrs. Mallinson is the estranged wife of Lieut.-Colonel Ernest Mallinson who served in the Indian Army and who has contributed to the Indian Military Widows' and Orphans' Fund. Under the rules of this Fund a wife, whether or not she is living with her husband at the time of his death, is entitled to a widows' pension. If, however, a marriage has been terminated by divorce, the former wife is only entitled to half pension and then only if the divorce has been granted to her petition.
If the divorce is granted to her husband's petition, as it would be under this Bill, she will not get a penny, because the letter goes on:
No pension is payable whatsoever in those cases where the divorce has been granted on the husband's petition.
I stress again that this is an official letter.
It has also been said that there will be new rules, but no one knows what they are. The House is entitled to question this very deeply. It is a matter of great concern. There is another reference to this point, from the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association. It endorses the point that if a wife is divorced on her husband's petition she will not get a penny. The position of the wife forced to divorce is likely to be not only humiliating but extremely poor financially. I know it is said in the Bill that if the position is too bad then the divorce will not be granted. In another part there are words which make it clear that the judge will have to look into a crystal


ball to make any kind of prediction of a wife's circumstances. The wife must have the right to state her position.
The only financial arrangements that need to be made are "the best that can be made in the circumstances." The wife is entitled to point out to a judge, as she can if the Amendment is passed, that although the woman her husband is to marry has no children, at that time, so that the judge may say that half her husband's salary goes to her and half to the other woman, it may well—

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. May I submit that it must be out of order under this Clause, when the debate is concentrated on religious objections—in spite of the fact that there are the words "or other" in the Amendment—to deal with such matters when the same ground will be covered when we come to the Amendments to Clause 4, the Title of which reads
Decree may be refused if divorce would result in grave financial or other hardship to respondent"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was with Clause 4 in mind that I tried to intervene earlier. I think the hon. Lady is relating her remarks as closely to the Amendment as she can. I hope that she will continue to do so.

Mrs. Knight: I am not in any way seeking to make a long speech, I am merely seeking to express in this House what my constituents have expressed to me, and what I fel about this. I have no intention of going over it all again, but it must be said somewhere and this seems to be the correct time and place to say it.
7.30 a.m.
It would be immensely difficult for a judge to assess what future circumstances might arise, and as the old wife gets older and the new wife has children, circumstances will change, with the man going back to the court and asking for more of his salary for his new wife. That is obvious. No man, unless he is wealthy, can keep two wives and families properly. There are few enough shreds of justice to be left to the woman who is going to be divorced. Let her at least have the right to state her case. It is not good enough to say that she can

draw National Assistance. I wonder how the taxpayers would feel about her doing that. I do not want to seem to be suggesting that only the woman will be placed in this position. If a man is placed in it, he should have the same rights.

Mr. Peter Emery: My hon. Friend has now suggested three times that the need for the Amendment is to allow the woman deserted to be able to state her case, particularly on financial grounds. I draw her attention to the wording of the subsection (2):
On a petition for divorce it shall be the duty of the court to inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the petitioner and into any facts alleged by the respondent.
As I understand it, this would allow the respondent to be able to do exactly what my hon. Friend is suggesting the Amendment is necessary to enable her to do.

Mrs. Knight: If the position were as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), other right hon. and hon. Members who really do know about the position would not have tabled the Amendment in these terms. These words are needed. I cannot understand why there is so much reluctance to listen to the case for the forcibly divorced wife.

Mr. Alec Jones: I do not think that the hon. Lady is being quite fair. We specially redrafted the old Clause 4 and presented it again as the new Clause 1, which states that the respondent
… may oppose the grant of a decree nisi on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial or other hardship.
This will do what the hon. Lady is asking—enable all these factors to be taken into account.

Mrs. Knight: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman apparently feels that the Chair has been at fault. If the position were as he states the Chair would not have selected this Amendment.
As I was saying, I am not anxious to claim that only a woman can have a case. A man can have a case too, and I would be as anxious to plead the cause of a man who, for instance, may have been unwise enough to have married at 50 a young women of 25. All might go well for years until she is


40 and he is 65, when the magic has worn a bit thin.
There is a popular song that runs:
Will you still need me,
Will you feed me,
When I'm 64?
It seems likely that, given the encouragement of the Bill, she would not. If the wife leaves her totally innocent husband, it is entirely wrong that she should be able to get a divorce and that, when he does not want a divorce and has done nothing wrong whatever, his point of view would not be considered.
It is almost invariably the woman who will be placed in the situation of being forcibly divorced. It is acknowledged even by the hon. Gentleman who promoted the Bill that it is the woman about whom we are mainly talking, and it is the woman whose cause I am mainly pleading. But I thought I should say that this could also happen to the husband, that there is as strong an argument against the forcible divorce of a man as there is against the forcible divorce of a woman.
It is important to remember that even today women need protection. Originally marriage was aimed at the protection of the woman, particularly when the woman is older—

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. I must press the point of order that if the Chairman allows a Second Reading debate again on this Amendment, an Amendment which deals primarily with religious objection, it will nullify the opportunity for the House to discuss the Amendments on Clause 4. I submit that the hon. Lady is completely out of order.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. Will you please bear in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if these matters are not dealt with now, reserving the right to repeat them further on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we will find the Government Whip coming in to move the Closure. Yes, we shall. It is most important in the interests of justice that we should have as much opportunity to state all the points that we want to make, and I hope that we shall be allowed to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), it is diffi- 
cult to rule rightly on this particular Amendment. In the submission of the Chair, the hon. Lady has tried to tie her argument in a general sort of way to the Amendment. At times she has been getting near to tedious repetition. I now hope she will try to come to the nub of her argument.

Mr. Alec Jones: On a point of order. Could it be made clear that Government Whips have not been on in discussing the principles of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Knight: I apologise if I have been guilty of tedious repetition. It is difficult to keep the thread of one's argument when one is constantly interrupted.
There are two important references that I should like to make. Both are worthy of a hearing at this point. The Women's Group on Public Welfare, which is an important body, has discussed this point. It carried a resolution at its conference providing for three contingencies. It provided, first, that in the event of a woman having a divorce forced upon her after five years' separation there should be financial safeguards, secondly that she should not be deprived of any pension to which she would have been entitled as a married woman, and, thirdly, that she should have the right to claim property of her ex-husband in the event of death.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is getting a little away from the Amendment. Although it refers to other grounds, there are Clauses in the Bill which are still to be discussed dealing specifically with these points.

Mrs. Knight: If there is an opportunity to raise it elsewhere, I am happy and ready to do so. But I find it difficult to see where else it could come except on this Clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are Amendments to the relevant Clause of the Bill on which I am sure the hon. Lady can raise this point.

Mrs. Knght: As I read the Amendments selected for discussion, this is literally the only one on which it can be raised.

Mr. John Mendelson: No.

Mrs. Knight: Then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me on which Amendment or Clause I can raise this matter.

Mr. Richard: Further to that point of order. The hon. Lady a moment ago was reading from a document in which a resolution was passed dealing with what this organisation said should happen in the event of a divorce taking place against a woman's will. How can that be relevant to discussion on an Amendment designed to prevent a divorce taking place?

Mrs. Knight: The conference was very much concerned because the divorce will not be able to be prevented from taking place—[Interruption.]—It is only fair that this point should be raised now. If I raise this matter under Clause 4 I shall be told that I should have raised it under Clause 2(1)(e). I a msick and tired of people trying to muzzle those of us who have important points to make from bodies outside this House—[Interruption.] I do not intend to read out the list of large and extremely important bodies which supported this resolution, although I should have liked to do so to show the widespread support for this matter. I cannot understand why hon. Members should be so anxious that these people should not be heard when they have a right to be heard on this point. I will not say more about that letter, but I am convinced that I am in order. Otherwise I should not still be on my feet.
Finally, there was a most important letter on this matter in The Times of 27th January last year from a very eminent Q.C., Mr. Geoffrey H. Crispin. This is the crux of what the Amendment is about. Mr. Crispin writes:
What is now proposed once again, as it was proposed in Mr. Leo Abse's Bill, is that divorce should be granted to an offending spouse against the consent of the innocent spouse. My experience"—
and it is most valuable that we should have his experience—
satisfies me that the vast majority of petitioners will be men: that women who have committed no other offence than giving up a career, growing older and bearing and bringing up children, will be 'put asunder' against their wish if this Bill ever becomes law. It is idle to talk of safeguards: they simply cannot be devised ….
If the Amendment is accepted, it may be that the wife, for whom I hold no brief, who is hanging on to her husband

to spite him, will not be able to do so. I am anxious that the wife who is not spiting him and has never done wrong should not be forced into this position, but should be able to have her case properly examined and understood, which the sponsors of the Bill apparently do not seem to wish.

Mr. Alec Jones: That is not true.

Mrs. Knight: I cannot understand why they should feel that this woman is, in theory, less worthy of understanding and sympathy than the new wife, the woman who has lured her husband away.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I compliment the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I have had the pleasure of listening to her on many occasions in this House presenting cases, with respect to my right hon. and hon. Friends, against a barrage of difficulty. We do not object to that. But on this occasion she did a great justice to the people she is representing, who, she made a specific point of saying, were the innocent people of a marriage.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that there is no longer any such thing as total guilt or total innocence. Most of us would say that this is absolutely right. I used to hear the late right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, waxing eloquent about original sin when people asked the workers to show a perfection which they did not possess. Some of us believe in original sin. Of course there is no such things as perfect innocence and perfect guilt, but there are qualities of innocence and qualities of guilt. In many instances it is the perfectly innocent woman—it is almost always the woman—and the children who suffer from the activities of a rather wayward husband. Why should that woman not be able to go to court to have her case assessed by a judge? Judges are able to do these things. They are able to detect the honesty of many a good woman who is trying to present her case to the court.
7.45 a.m.
Half the trouble that has been caused here could be obviated if the Government Front Bench—I was going to use a Prince Philip expression to convey what is in my mind—would give us the information that we require. They have


refused to give us information which would have obviated a tremendous amount of the inquiry that we have to make. It is no use telling the hon. Lady to wait until we debate some other Clause or Amendment, because when that occasion arises she might be ruled out of order, in the same way as some hon. Members have tried to get her out of order on this Amendment.
What safeguards will there be for people who want to say something about religious or other grounds? The hon. Lady made a great point about the financial position, and she was not out of order when she said that we—and most of us are working-class people—have enough to do to keep our homes, wives and children without going on any excursions to do something else. Why do we not tell the truth? The Government know that they have to make a massive financial contribution towards getting this Bill across to the people of this country. Without that financial contribution this Measure will be a dead duck. Everybody knows that.
There has been some collusion between the sponsors of the Bill and the Government—

Hon. Members: That is not true.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks a little more to the Amendment, and not make a general Second Reading speech.

Mr. Mahon: I am not making a general Second Reading speech. As a matter of fact, I made an excellent speech when I did. I am confining myself to the other objections to the dissolution of a marriage, and I am entitled to ask these questions. Along with many others, I made this Labour Government, and they should tell us the size of the financial contribution which they are to make to get this Bill over the first stile, to help the sort of people about whom the hon. Lady has been talking.
It seems that the Government are not prepared to listen to reasoned arguments. The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has presented this very reasonable Amendment, and I cannot for the life of me see why people should get annoyed when we try to explore the difficulties of our own people. We talk

with great facility about minorities, including religious minorities. God help those of us who belong to them. We are getting afraid of the incursion of the State, and many of us have spent a good deal of our lifetime in fighting this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I am finding great difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment. Perhaps he can assist me.

Mr. Mahon: I am trying to assist you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was thinking of the individual, of the child, who will be affected by the situation. I am wondering what safeguards will be given to those people by a State that does not fully understand. If the State does fully understand the difficulties which it will incur in this respect, why do not the Government stand up on their feet and tell us what they are doing, or are they keeping it a secret?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the Amendment, which deals with one aspect of why a petition should not be granted.

Mr. Mahon: I will not try your patience any more, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that I am right in saying this. Perhaps I am expressing myself in a way which is outside the bounds of order. I am experiencing just as much difficulty in conveying my meaning as the hon. Lady did when trying to express her viewpoint.
The Government could help us about this Clause. Our doubts about the Clause could be eased by an intervention by the Government and by an explanation of the financial responsibility to those people who will be affected by the Bill, to whom the Government have given so much comfort.

Mr. Percival: I am sorry that I missed part of the beginning of the debate on this Amendment, but, like all other hon. Members, I find it difficult to sit continuously for more than nine hours.
I am happy now to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it appears to me that this is the one Amendment which goes directly to the provision which is the heart and soul of the controversy over this Bill. The Amendment relates directly to Clause


2(1)(e). Clause 4 may have some bearing on it, and I may come to that in a moment. But Clause 4 relates to all the provisions, whereas this Amendment relates directly to that one provision which is the heart and soul of the controversy.
For reasons which I will indicate in a moment, I believe there is here an element of public policy on which the Government should have a view and on which I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to help us. The reason why I say that is that Clause 2(1)(e) introduces into our law an entirely new concept. Whether it should be introduced or not is the matter of controversy. There cannot be any controversy over the proposition that it introduces a new concept. On all the other grounds, it is fair for people to say: We are not obliging anybody to take advantage of these provisions. If people for religious reasons prefer to stay married, they do not have to take advantage of these relaxations and present petitions. If they do not want to be divorced, all they have got to do is to make sure that they do not do one of the things which will make them liable to be divorced. It is, therefore, fair to say that we are not ramming anything down people's throats. If they do not want to take divorce proceedings, they need not. If they do not want to be divorced, they know the rules. They can keep within those rules.
Where Clause 2(1)(e) introduces a novel concept is this. It introduces the possibility that somebody who has played entirely according to the rules and who does not want to be divorced, for good reason, may nevertheless find himself or herself being divorced. The courts of this country will be made available to a petitioner taking advantage of these provisions to impose that unwanted divorce upon the respondent. That is why I say that there is an element of public policy here and the Government should have a view on the introduction of this new concept, which the courts will be used to implement. In many cases there is some blame on both sides, but that does not carry the argument any further, because then one comes to degrees of blame. But if Clause 2(1)(e) goes through unamended, a wife or husband who has been entirely blameless could be the subject of divorce proceedings.
I have listened to the arguments about this over many months, and I know that in some cases a wife or husband will decide, out of pure spite, not to take divorce proceedings. I do not believe that these cases are very frequent. A party who wants a divorce and cannot persuade the other one to bring proceedings may use robust language and say that it is spite which is preventing the other from taking action, but if a wife or husband declines to act, it is usually for some reason which seems good to that person. That is what is important, and not what we think is a good reason, if we attach any importance at all to individual freedom. If it is a good reason to the person concerned, we should respect that.
There were Amendments in Committee to try to deal with pure spite, for instance by introducing the concept of "some reasonable grounds" for not taking action. The Amendment is far better than anything else yet put forward. It will mean that the onus will be upon the respondent to satisfy the court that he or she has good reason—

Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely the onus is on the petitioner to satisfy the court that the respondent has no good reason.

Mr. Percival: I was interrupting myself to make that point. I fell into that trap, but it does not further the argument. The petitioner will have to satisfy the court that the respondent has no good reason for not wishing to be divorced. Is that not common justice? If the respondent has a good reason, religious or otherwise, should we not respect that? I have no doubt that we should.

Mr. Richard: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman heard my point—because he had other things to do and because I was on my feet. The Amendment refers to "good reason". Is it an objective test or a subjective test? Is it that the respondent has to satisfy the court that he has good reason, or is to be the subjective standard of goodness in which he believes? The hon. and learned Gentleman said a moment ago that it would be "if the respondent thought" he had good reason and that that would be an important issue. I agree; but is he saying we should take paragraph (e) out totally? I do not believe there are many people who would


be caught by paragraph (e) who do not at this precise moment of time believe they have good reason.

8.0 a.m.

Mr. Percival: I do not believe I can answer all that without making another speech, and I shall not take all that time, because, Government Whips apart, I believe the debate will be drawing to a close before all that long, but I do not believe that one can draw these clear distinctions between subjective and objective tests. It was the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), I think, who, in another debate earlier this morning, was saying it was not reasonable to say it was objective or subjective; it might be a bit of both. That may well be the case. I want to stick to broad lay terms. I take the point which the hon. Gentleman made just now: Is the test here to be whether someone thinks he has good reason? That sort of test is substituting one's own judgment, but if it is a good reason for that person, then, as far as I am concerned, that is 90 per cent. of the value. The answer is that it is probably a subjective test.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the corollary of what I am saying. If one accepts that a person has good reason in not wanting to be divorced—and there seems to be a tremendous lot to be said for that—the corollary of that is to say that if the Amendment is rejected it must mean that it is intended that divorce should be granted even though the respondent does not want it, even though the respondent is not in any way at fault, and even though the respondent has good reason, on religious or other grounds, for not wanting to be divorced. I think that that offends against common sense and common justice.
I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Pontypool on Amendment 10. It is equally relevant to Amendment 24, if not, indeed, even more so. The hon. Gentleman said that Amendment 10 was not necessary because the court would be obliged or entitled to consider under new Clause 1—to take the place of the original Clause 4—grounds of "other hardship", which were the words he quoted. He was suggesting that "other hardship" would include other grounds and would include religious grounds and any other

grounds. What I would say to him is the following. I ask him to consider this, and I should like a reply from somebody.
If that is right, and if it is going to be open to the court to interpret "other hardship" as meaning distress because of religious grounds or any other grounds, and if Clause 4 is meant to include that, then there is no logical basis upon which this Amendment can be rejected. If Clause 4 covers Amendment No. 10 and this Amendment, No. 24, there is no logical ground for rejecting Amendment No. 24, because it is an Amendment which relates directly to Clause 2(1)(e), whereas Clause 4 is more general. I hope that I have correctly understood what the hon. Member said—and he has been indicating that I have correctly interpreted him. In that case, by accepting the Amendment the promoters would do no more than that which the hon. Member has stated is the intention of the Bill.
By so doing, the promoters would do a great deal to set at rest the worries which some hon. Members have about the Bill. One of the distressing features of the Bill has been the unwillingness of the promoters, save in exceptional circumstances, to concede any ground at all. That is not intended to be critical of them. No doubt it is because they hold very firm views. There might have been much less concern about the Bill, and its passage might have been much easier, had there been any attempt to reach common ground on any of these matters which are causing concern.
If the hon. Member for Pontypool meant what he said about Clause 4, he could readily accept the Amendment. By doing so he would go a considerable way to putting at rest the fears which some have about the provisions of the Bill, He would also go a good way towards ensuring a wider measure of good will towards the Bill.

Mr. Abse: It is not my intention to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who has left the Chamber, into the detail of the financial provisions because I believe that that subject will be open to us when we reach Amendment No. 21, when I hope, as the House would expect, there will be a full discussion of all


the minutiae concerned. That will give us a full opportunity.
That does not mean that I do not regret that the hon. Lady's speech has distracted attention from the significant Amendment which the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) tabled. The hon. Lady states that she directs attention to the Amendment bearing in mind the many women affected by the Clause. It is important for all of us not to be so certain that we speak for women. We may be speaking, in fact, for only some of them. There are other women who do not pass resolutions at public meetings—resolutions such as that which the hon. Lady read. But they send us letters telling us that they have been living unmarried for perhaps 20 or 30 years, unable to have a pension and, very often, because of the financial circumstances which have arisen and because of the orders made against their common law husbands, giving more than their full share to the home. This Bill is by no means a Casanova's Charter. But it is equally important that we do not promote a Bill which becomes a "Jezebel's Justification". We want neither a "Casanova's Charter" nor a "Jezebel's Justification".
I would prefer to take the debate back whence it began and deal with the serious points made by the right hon. Member for Bridlington.
There is much weight in the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) because if the Amendment were accepted the inquiry which the court would have to make in uncontested cases could hardly be seriously completed because the respondent would probably not be before the court; and in contested cases the inquiry would be extremely difficult to accomplish successfully because of the vagueness of the subject matter.
I could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) when he tended to devalue the importance of my hon. Friend's argument. He spoke of the test as a subjective matter in deciding whether the respondent did not have good reason to object. Is not he aware that a man or woman may not give to his or her spouse a divorce for a great many reasons: out of spite, envy, neurosis, financial ex-

pectation, pension considerations and so on? If on every occasion a woman needed merely to select one of those reasons, the whole provision with which we are concerned would be almost nullified. The result would be that the social problem with which we are seeking to deal would still remain, as it has remained since and before the 1951 Act.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has cited only negative reasons, such as apathy, indifference, spite, jealousy and so on. Would he care to cite some creative ones, such as the willingness of the wife to keep the home going or her being ready to forgive and take her husband back? These are positive reasons.

Mr. Abse: To suggest that a good reason why there should not be a divorce is the fact that the wife wants her husband back is not a good reason if he does not want to come back. Since in the vast majority of the cases that we have in mind the parties will already have been apart for five years, the hon. Gentleman must agree that it would be, to say the least, extraordinarily artificial for it to be regarded as a good reason for the divorce not to be granted that, after, say, five years separation, the wife still hoped against all reasonable expectation that her husband wanted to return.
The difficulty which this matter raises was pin-pointed by the hon. and learned Member for Southport when he said that if the woman thought the reason was good that should be sufficient. It is impossible to expect the court or any judge to make an objective judgment on what are purely subjective feelings. It is not correct to say that the sponsors have not tried to deal with this dilemma.

Mr. Percival: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in quoting exactly what each hon. Member has said. He will recall that I said that the test would be largely subjective, on the basis that if the person felt that the reason was good, then that, I said, was a good starting point. I did not say that it would be entirely subjective.

Mr. Abse: The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree—this is certainly so from the thousands of letters which I have received; other hon. Members will have received similar correspondence—that both parties usually believe that they


each have good reasons either for one to be apart from the other or for the other to deny his or her divorce. Each is passionately convinced that he or she is right. I do not doubt that once one concedes, as one must, that it must be a substantive test, one finds oneself in a dilemma.
We have tried to meet the objections raised by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), in particular in respect of the old Clause 4. We have sought to ensure that every woman has the right in every case of divorce, irrespective of the grounds of the petition—even in a case where the husband is bringing a divorce on the ground of adultery; she could be an adulterous woman—to oppose the decree nisi on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage would result in financial or other hardship.
8.15 a.m.
I have never suggested—as I am told an hon. Member said, when I was out of the Chamber for a short time, I had suggested—that a woman who was a member of the Mothers' Union would be able to give that as a good reason for objection. The hon. Member misinterpreted me. I repeat that if a woman was closely associated with religious activity her personal position would be acute in the matter of divorce. She would be able to put that before the court within new Clause 1.
That would not mean that the court would be in the same dilemma as it would be under the Amendment. It would mean that the court would have to make the inquest which I think in a small number of cases the right hon. Member for Bridlington thinks desirable. It is enshrined in the Clause that once she puts that in the court shall consider all the circumstances, the conduct of the parties, the interests of the parties and of the children or other persons concerned. When it has taken everything into account, including, if necessary, the religious commitment of the woman, the court, if it thinks it wrong in all the circumstances to dissolve the marriage, may refuse to do so.

Sir S. McAdden: I am sure that the hon. Member will acquit me of any intention to misrepresent him. He suggested on the previous argument that all relevant considerations would be taken

into account by the judge and that a person's being an active and regular attender of the Mothers' Union would be a relevant factor. I do not think that I misrepresented the hon. Member at all in describing to the House what his submission was.

Mr. Abse: I am sorry. I had it at second hand. It was said in the only time that I was out of the Chamber for 10 minutes since the start of the debate. I apologise if that caused a contretemps.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington may not be doing such a service as he thinks. I have certainly eschewed becoming involved in any debates concerning religious attitudes of people in this country, but I draw on clinical material which has come to me over the years. Hon. Members who belong to the Roman Catholic Church have a certainty about their faith so that they regard the secular law with considerable indifference and do not acknowledge and accept that according to it they are divorced, for they hold the view that marriage is a sacrament.
Without getting involved in these controversies, I am bound to remark that very often the same high confidence is not attached to the Church of England. Doubtless the whole history of divorce in this country reveals the same ambivalent attitude to divorce from the days of Henry VIII to "Putting Asunder".
It is a fact that a very considerable number of Catholics have a high degree of confidence about their position. They do not want to become involved in a divorce, and the reason why they do not take the initiative is that it would be anathema to them to seek to divorce their spouse although they have been separated from him for decades. It is abundantly clear to me from communications I have had that many of them would prefer to be passive about it and not become involved.
There is some danger involved in seeking to make Amendments which would be regarded almost as an incitement for them to involve themselves in some things which they would rather eschew. I am not at all certain that we should be doing them as great a service as is sometimes suggested. In all the circumstances


I recommend to the House that it should not accept the Amendment but should direct its attention to the opportunities which are open to men and women in the circumstances adumbrated by the right hon. Member for Bridlington to take advantage of new Clause 1.

Division No. 260.]
AYES
[8.20 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Hobden, Dennis
Oram, Albert E.


Ashley, Jack
Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Astor, John
Hooson, Emyln
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hornby, Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Awdry, Daniel
Horner, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barnes, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Joel
Howie, W.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Huckfield, Leslie
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Booth, Albert
Hunt, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Boston, Terence
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rowlands, E.


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ryan, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda West)
Scott-Nicholas


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius


Dickens, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'be)
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Luard, Evan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ellis, John
Lubbock, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Emery, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
MacDermot, Niall
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Faulds, A.
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Marks, Kenneth
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Forester, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Freeson, Reginald
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Christopher Price.


Hamling, Wiliam






NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Wiliams, Sir Brandon


Biffen, John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Black, Sir Cyril
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Body, Richard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Campbell, Bruce (Oldham, W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Waddington, David


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ward, Dame Irene


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Woof, Robert


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maddan, Martin
Worsley, Marcus


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Simon Mahon.


Hiley, Joseph

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 261.]
AYES
[8.29 a.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Body, Richard
Emery, Peter


Biffen, John
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
English, Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Delargy, Hugh
Fortescue, Tim

Mr. Christopher Price: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 36.

The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 109.

Grant-Ferris, R.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Small, William


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Waddington, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ward, Dame Irene


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maddan, Martin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mahon, Peter (Preston. S.)
Woof, Robert


Hiley, Joseph
Maude, Angus
Worsley, Marcus


Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian



Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Simon Mahon.


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Newens, Stan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haseldine, Norman
Norwood, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Hobden, Dennis
Nott, John


Ashley, Jack
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Astor, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Oram, Albert E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hornby, Richard
Orbach, Maurice


Awdry, Daniel
Horner, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Barnes, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Howie, W.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, Leslie
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boston, Terence
Hunt, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Richard, Ivor


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowlands, E.


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ryan, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dickens, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lipton, Marcus
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ellis, John
Luard, Evan
Varley, Eric G.


Ennals, David
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Macdonald, A. H.
Whitaker, Ben


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Winnick, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Christopher Price.


Hamling, William
Murray, Albert

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next Amendment selected, No. 14, is for Division only. The Question is—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the very small margin beyond 100 of the last vote, and the fact that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had started to put the Question, and I am required to proceed.

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 2, line 10, leave out '4' and insert
'(Decree to be refused in certain circumstances)'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Mr. Lewis: May I now proceed with the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In view of the very narrow margin of

the vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and the fact that it was largely made up of Ministers, who turned up especially for this purpose—including Treasury Ministers, who will have to foot the bill for the result of this Measure—it is obvious that in the House as a whole there is no overwhelming support for the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair and not the other side of the Chamber. He is making a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was only the reaction from the other side of the House that made me face hon. Members opposite.
In view of the closeness of the vote, which obviously does not reflect the feeling of the House, nor, as we believe, that


of the country, may we be assured that at 11 o'clock we shall go on to private Members' business? There are a large number of Bills, and in voting as they have so heavily in the last Division the Government are assisting in killing private Members' business. Can we have your assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at 11 o'clock the proceedings on this Bill will be adjourned and that we can go on to the business of the day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not within the province of the Chair to make such a decision.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask at what point the Leader of the House will be acquainting the House of his intentions with regard to the other important private Members' business which is at risk if these proceedings are prolonged?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not responsible for the Government. There is still further time before we need to consider that question.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you inform the House when you are likely to be calling the Solicitor-General to give us news of what the Lord Chancellor has in mind, as this would facilitate business?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot give the hon. Lady any information about that.

Mr. Abse: I beg to move Amendment 15, in page 2, line 11, at end insert 'nisi'.
This Amendment meets a view put to us by opponents of the Bill, particularly the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell). The House will recall that there was some doubt as to whether Section 33 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, might be implicity repealed by Clause 2(3) because that subsection is expressly subject to two qualifications.
The hon. and learned Member for Southport brought the attention of the sponsors to this difficulty and expressed, his concern, with other hon. Members.

Although we take the view that Section 33 comes into operation only after a decree nisi, we do not want any doubt on the matter, and we are grateful to the hon. and learned Member. We hope that this will not be interpreted in this way—not to be the decree nisi, which obviously can affect Section 33 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which directs, among other things, that a court must not make a decree absolute until it is satisfied that the arrangements for the care and upbringing of the children are satisfactory, or the best that can be made in the circumstances.

Mr. Percival: I rise only to say "thank you." It would be churlish to save a minute or two at the expense of failing to do that. My hon. Friends and I are obliged to the promoters of the Bill for meeting our point.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir C. Black: I beg to move Amendment 27, in line 23, leave out 'so far as practicable'.
Much of what I have to say arises out of Clause 2(d), which says:
that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent does not object to a decree being granted.
This is a most important condition. The Amendment is to subsection (6), which says
(6) Provision shall be made by rules of court for the purpose of ensuring, so far as practicable, that where in pursuance of section 2(1)(d) of this Act the petitioner alleges that the respondent does not object to a decree being granted the respondent has been given such information as will enable him to understand the consequences to him of his not objecting to a decree being granted and the steps which he must take if he wishes to object.
The Amendment is to omit the words "so far as practicable". It is highly undesirable that this very important condition should be dependent upon them.
8.45 a.m.
The essence of the subsection rests upon the other party being in agreement. It is also vitally necessary that the other party, if there is any danger of a misunderstanding, should understand exactly what is involved in his agreement, how it will affect his position and what the general consequences will be. It is not sufficient that confirmation of his consent and his understanding of what


is involved should be "so far as practicable". Unless the court can be satisfied that he agrees and that he understands what is involved in his agreeing, there should be no divorce. The words "so far as practicable" are both unnecessary and impractical.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am sure that most of us are grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) for the Amendment. It is the desire of the sponsors of the Bill that non-objection shall be genuinely informed and that the consequences shall be understood by all respondents. It was this motive which caused us to insert this provision in the Bill and if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment strengthens it I accept it with gratitude.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE RECONCILIATION

Sir C. Black: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 30, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
This again is not a major question. It is, indeed, a minor drafting matter. The Clause begins:
Provision may be made by rules of court for requiring the solicitor ….
It is not satisfactory that such a provision "may" be made. It would seem essential that the rules of court covering this matter should be made, and I want to put the matter beyond question by making it mandatory.

Mr. Alec Jones: Once again we are pleased to accept the Amendment, because it is our wish that the rules of court shall be made designed to encourage reconciliation.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir C. Black: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 31, leave out 'whether' and insert 'that'.
This Amendment is on the same lines as the last two, and I hope that it will have the same reception. In subsection (1) are the words,
… to certify whether he has discussed with the petitioner the possibility of a reconciliation …

I am seeking to substitute the word "that" for the word "whether" in those words. I want to make certain that he has discussed the matter with the petitioner and that his certificate is in the right form.

Mr. Alec Jones: Accepting Amendments is becoming something of a habit—a rather pleasant habit. I am sure that we all agree that we want to make the provisions of Clause 3 as effective as possible, and this is why we accepted Amendment No. 17. The strengthening of this provision has occupied a considerable amount of time both in debates on the previous Bill last year and in respect of the present legislation.
There was a great deal of discussion of reconciliation on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson), who gave an undertaking during the Committee stage of his Bill that he would hold discussions with the Law Society and with the National Marriage Guidance Council to see if they favoured the strengthening of subsections (1) or (2). They clearly indicated that they would not favour any such strengthening. The National Marriage Guidance Council was opposed to any compulsory attempts at reconciliation and it felt that any provision that sought to go further would be likely to impose an intolerable strain on their limited resources.
Although one should take into account the views of the Law Society and the National Marriage Guidance Council, which has to deal day to day with problems of reconciliation, nevertheless I am prepared to recommend acceptance of this Amendment. By the time that the Bill returns to us from another place, the Law Society may have made further recommendations and the National Marriage Guidance Council may have persuaded this House to reconsider the matter further. However, at this point I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'be disregarded' and insert 'not be conclusive'.
The Amendment relates to subsection (4) of Clause 3, which in turn relates to Clause 2(1,b), which substitutes for the existing ground of cruelty something very


similar, although no longer using the word "cruelty".
The effect of the Clause is that if one spouse has been cruel to the other and then there is a reconcilation which last no longer than six months the court in deciding whether there has been cruelty or conduct, which up to now we have always called cruelty, shall disregard anything that has happened during those six months. This is asking the court to do the impossible. It is asking it to disregard the most important evidence that it can have before it.
Let us take as an example a case where a husband has treated his wife badly and where she satisfies the court that he has behaved in such a way towards her that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with him. That is the requirement. But let us assume that the evidence before the judge is that after the last occasion on which he struck her they came together again and lived together quite happily, perhaps for five months, with no trouble at all, blissfully happy. The Clause requires the judge to disregard altogether those five months of blissful happiness and to deliver, in effect, a completely phony judgment. He has to say that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent when he knows perfectly well that she can go on living with him, because of the evidence that he has had of the events of the last five months, so he must know that he is delivering a completely phony judgment. He is required to do that by the terms of the Clause, which direct him that the events of that period, which may be up to six months, shall be disregarded. The court is put in an intolerable position if it is asked to disregard what, in fact, is most cogent and relevant evidence.
I invite the House to say that for the words "shall be disregarded" there should be substituted the words "shall not be conclusive." By all means let us leave it like that. Standing like that the Clause can only do good, because it encourages reconciliation, which I understand is its laudable object. We do not want a situation where a wife who has been badly treated refuses to go back to her husband because she is afraid that if she does, and forgives him, she

will not be able to obtain a divorce. She wants to protect herself against that possibility. Therefore, it is a desirable provision to have what used to be called this kiss and make up period so that she may come back to try for a reconciliation without throwing away her case for a divorce.
I welcome the major part of the Clause, but I submit that we cannot leave it as it is, putting the court in the position where it must disregard altogether the events of those months. If the words are that the events of those last months "shall not be conclusive", then the judge can reach and deliver an honest judgment. He can say: "True, the wife came back for a month or two; true, that for a little while they got on perfectly well; but there was conduct on the part of the husband which leaves me of the opinion that she cannot reasonably be expected to go on living with him. Therefore, she can have her divorce, although she has made an attempt at reconciliation."
But it is putting the court in an utterly impossible position and making the judge deliver what he knows to be a dishonest judgment if he is directed to disregard altogether the most vital evidence before him. In making this decision whether a wife can reasonably be expected to live with her husband, the events of the last period during which they lived together must be most important. Indeed, if they have been together for the last six months, the evidence of earlier periods are so remote as to be unimportant. We cannot put our judges in the position where they have to deliver a dishonest judgment by saying, as they would have to do, on occasions anyway, that it is unreasonable to expect this woman to live with her husband when, because of the evidence that he has heard of the last six months, he knows that it would not be unreasonable at all because she has been living blissfully happily with him during that time.

9.0 a.m.

Mr. Percival: I think this is sufficiently important to bear one further example of how it might work. On the interpretation of this provision, I think I go a little further even than my hon. Friend. If the statute provides that the fact that the persons have lived together shall be


disregarded, that means that evidence of that fact cannot even be given. If it does not mean that, it means that the evidence can be given and then the court has to disregard it, and that really is what they call in my part of the world daft. If it means that, it is daft, and it is placing an impossible task on the court.
If it means the contrary, it means that the evidence cannot even be tendered because the judge would ask, "To what issue is this relevant?". Indeed, the person seeking to exclude it might even object when the evidence was being tendered. He would be asked, "To what issue is this evidence relevant?", and it would be pointed out that these facts had to be disregarded, and therefore they could not be relevant, and therefore evidence of them could not be tendered.
Before I give my illustration, perhaps I might draw attention to the fact that this is six months after the date of the occurrence of the final incident, so, ex hypothesi, it is six months within which there was no bad behaviour or any bad behaviour coming within this type of breakdown.
In a borderline case where for, say, two years one party had been treating the other badly—let me use that word to keep the illustration as neutral as I can—and it is a borderline case whether that conduct as amounted to conduct such as had the result that the respondent could not reasonably be expected to live with the petitioner, the whole story of that might be, "He treated me badly from December, 1960, to December, 1962. I lived with him for another six months, and within that period he did not do anything of which I complain"—because this is six months after the final incident of which complaint is made—"and then I left."
On this wording "shall be disregarded", the picture that would be put before the judge would simply be of those two years, and not of the six months thereafter. I think the hon. Member for Pontypool is indicating assent. It seems that this is putting the court in blinkers. In a borderline case the fact that the respondent continued to live with the petitioner and there were no further incidents might be the most convincing evidence.
My hon. and learned Friend and I only want to change this to "not conclusive". We do not want to indicate what weight should be attached to the fact that they lived together, because that would be variable in every case. It would be entirely a matter for the court, and one would want to make it quite clear that the fact that they went on living together was not conclusive to any degree, because we think we understand the reason for this.
No one wants to do anything which will hinder attempts at conciliation or reconciliation—conciliation being where the parties go on for six months after the last incident, hoping to make it up; reconciliation being where they have parted and they may get together again. None of us wants to do anything to hinder that. So we are happy to make it clear to the court that the fact that the parties have lived together after the last incident must be treated not as conclusive but merely as part of the story.
In a glaring case this would have little importance. The court would say, "We are quite satisfied that this was a woman doing her absolute utmost to make a go of it, but, though the husband did not continue the treatment, his attitude to her, his failure to make it up to her and so on, was such that we do not think there is any significance to be attached to the six months." But in another case where the couple had been parted and where the six months followed straight on, after the conduct alleged to be such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him, it is not exaggerating to say that that could be a most vital piece of evidence. In some cases it would be worthless; in others it would be vital.
If we preserve this wording, that evidence, even though it is vital, will be excluded. My hon. Friends and I do not feel that that makes sense. We feel that to change the wording to "shall not be conclusive" will do justice to what is desired here, and we hope that we may now have persuaded the promoters of the wisdom of making that change.

Mr. Body: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has forstalled me. Therefore, I will shorten my remarks considerably.
I wish to ask the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) whether he has considered some of these implications. I am sure that he has carefully considered the phraseology adopted in this Clause, as he has considered the phraseology in other Clauses. But the insertion of these words "be disregarded"—he must not mind my saying this—is a rather reactionary step. It is going against the trend. The courts realise, as I am sure he knows, how dangerous it is to shut out evidence. The tendency now is to liberalise the rules and admit evidence which would never have been allowed years ago. This trend is obviously proving helpful. It has been welcomed by the bench, and I think that practitioners would say that, on the whole, things are very much easier and certainly no less just.
This is an example where evidence will have to be shut out willy-nilly as the Bill is drafted. There may be instances where it ought not to be shut out. There may not be very many of them, but there may be a number of occasions when this sort of evidence might be decisive. It is in those cases where injustice could easily follow.
I therefore urge the hon. Member for Pontypool to think again about the phraseology here. The Amendment will not in any way imperil the spirit of the Clause. It will simply enable the court to consider evidence which might be helpful. It will simply enable evidence, which would otherwise be wholly inadmissible, to be relevant. By making it inadmissible, as the Clause requires it to be, some injustice might follow.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The object of the Clause is to promote and encourage reconciliations, which everyone will agree is desirable. If husbands or wives who had been badly treated had a reasonable case to petition for divorce because the marriage had broken down, because they could not reasonably be expected to live with the other party, they want to be reasonably certain the going back will not prejudice the case which they already have. If it is thought that this will make a substantial difference, the number of attempts at reconcilation will be very small. This would be a bad thing. There is, I admit, some dilemma between the desirability of the court considering all

the evidence and the object of promoting reconcilations, but the second should be the over-riding objective. This is why I support the present wording of the Clause and hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Abse: I was not present when this matter was discussed in Committee, but few matters connected with drafting have caused me more anxious thought than this. The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) raised it then on the issue of adultery, and the former said that the evidence during the reconciliation period should be treated as not conclusive. But he was dealing with the adultery Clause rather than with this one. When he withdrew the Amendment, he promised to apply his mind to seeing whether it could be, improved. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) also said that he would consider the matter carefully.
But there is no Amendment down today on the issue of adultery either by the hon. and learned Member for Southport or by my hon. Friend. I do not say that ironically: it is not surprising, in view of the delicacy and complexity of this matter and the difficulty of finding a formula which will not sabotage the reconciliation provision.
The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) now seeks to apply that original Amendment to the question of what we might call "unreasonable behaviour". The issue is clear, although not without its difficulties. But even if there is, from the lawyer's point of view, some artificiality, that price may have to be paid if that is the only way in which we would save some marriages from divorce. A solicitor, vicar or marriage guidance councellor must know, if he seeks to persuade a woman who has been subjected to cruelty to make another attempt, that if she finds it impossible in the six months to blot out the past acts of cruelty she will not prejudice her rights to a divorce.
9.15 a.m.
If there are any "ifs" or any "buts" about the position, I am certain other solicitors will begin to feel inhibited about encouraging people to go back together. This is speculation. The hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West


will know that the kiss and make up provisions of the 1963 Act have been considerably eroded. They have been eroded, as he knows and acknowledges, because of the case law with its fine distinctions between the coming together of the parties for three months as distinct from the coming together for reconciliation, and that has eroded the confidence of solicitors. It may be that they are not so sophisticated and not so subtle as the members of the higher branch of the profession, but my colleagues in practice find this a dilemma. I know, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member, from his experience, must know, that those provisions have not been used to anything like the extent they should have been, and it is unfortunate, because we all want to have reconciliation.
I fear that the wording of the Amendment, "not be conclusive", will be a danger to reconciliation. That was hinted at in Committee, and I suspect that it was understood to be so by the hon. and learned Member for Southport in Committee, and that if there were to be presumption of conclusiveness—though I do not suppose that that was the intention of the Amendment—that would wreck the whole of the reconciliation devices of the Bill.
In practice, I suspect some of the difficulties will not arise. I concede that. Some of the difficulties which the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West has brought to the attention of the House will not arise, because, more often than not, where there is an unsuccessful reconcilation period, there is likely to be during the period an act by the respondent upon which the petitioner will be able to rely. There will, therefore, be a final incident, later than the one which preceded the start of the intended reconcilation period.
What will not be possible as the Bill stands is for six months' belated good behaviour by the husband after a lifetime of cruelty to his wife totally to prejudice her right to a divorce, although she makes an attempt at reconciliation, but finds it impossible to erase past humiliations. That is the position as the Clause stands. So the wife will not be in that position if, after a lifetime of cruelty, she should be encouraged to go back for six months only to find it im-

possible to erase the memories of past humiliations.
Does that mean I am fully satisfied with the Clause? I am not. I confess it. I adopt the view of my hon. Friend, that we cannot prejudice reconciliation, but I would say to the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West and to the hon. and learned Member for Southport that if they wish to discuss the matter with the sponsors, and if they have got other ideas to get over some of the difficulties which have been put forward, then I am willing not only to discuss them with them but, if we can find a formula, I will suggest it to the peer who will be steering the Bill in another place. Indeed, I am prepared to go further. I am prepared to have discussions with the Law Commissioners, to see if this intention, which is common to the hon. and learned Members and myself, to get a formula which will minimise the artificiality but not prejudice reconciliation, can be achieved, and I will do that with great pleasure. I, too, have had my doubts, but I have not yet found, nor has anyone else found, a satisfactory formula. I hope that out of the discussions which I am prepared to have, including those with the Law Commission, there may be further suggestions which will enable us to make a proposal in another place.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: In view of that invitation, of which I shall certainly avail myself, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

DECREE MAY BE REFUSED IF DIVORCE WOULD RESULT IN GRAVE FINANCIAL OR OTHER HARDSHIP TO RESPONDENT

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 3, line 36, leave out Clause 4.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Clause 6

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR RESPONDENT IN CERTAIN CASES

Sir Lionel Heald: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 36, leave out
'or the best that can be made in the circumstances'.


To make this point intelligible it is necessary for me to read subsection (2)(b):
… the court shall not make absolute the decree of divorce unless it is satisfied—
(a) that the petitioner should not be required to make any financial provision for the respondent
—that is to say, the financial provision has already been taken care of—
or
(b) that the financial provision made by the petitioner for the respondent is reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances.
There has been unanimous objection to that provision from the women's organisations, or at any rate all those with which I have been in touch. They feel very strongly about it, particularly about the harshness of the language and its almost insulting tone. The phrase serves no good purpose. What it says, as a matter of English language, if I may paraphrase, is,
that the financial provision made by the petitioner for the respondent is reasonable and fair or that it is not reasonable or fair but is the best that can be made in the circumstances.
I have never seen anything like that in a statute. If we delete these words and the provision is reasonable and fair—that is to say, if it is the best that can be made in the circumstances—it is the only reasonable and fair thing that can be done. But to suggest quite deliberately to those who read the provision that they will be given some provision which is neither reasonable nor fair is utterly wrong.
We have discussed this point three or four times. I have had many very pleasant discussions with the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I do not think we have ever had an acrid discussion. Usually he produces a pretty good answer, sometimes an ingenious answer with which I do not agree, but it is always well done and it is almost always reasonable in its way. But even he has never been able to get this one across, certainly to me or to anyone else to whom I have ever talked on the subject. I have had scores of letters about these words. I have never talked to any organisation or any meeting of ladies at which this point has not been raised. They regard it as disgraceful and disgusting. I have heard very strong language used about it. Whoever drafted

it, even if it were the Archangel Gabriel, it is wrong and should be deleted.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I again join with the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) in urging that something be done to improve the drafting of this part of the Bill. If the words
… reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances
appeared in any other Measure affecting the citizen, they would be disregarded by the whole House with complete unanimity. A change would be demanded. One knows from experience that
… the best that can be made in the circumstances
could, in some cases, mean a woman, a sick man or a child being left in a state of poverty and utter neglect. I feel certain that the Government have had a great deal to do with the Bill, and I urge them to redraft this provision.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he considers would be reasonable and fair in the case of, for example, a wife whose husband is serving a long prison sentence? This is not an academic question because I have had to face a situation of this kind on behalf of a constituent. Might not the provision as at present drafted prove useful in this type of case?

Mr. Mahon: I admit that such a case had not occurred to me when I first considered the matter. I suppose that, even when divorce is not threatened, a woman whose husband is in goal is in a difficult plight. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter because the inequality which arises when families are split in this way—when the husband is in goal—must be remedied.
I hope that the Government will now explain what they have in mind in connection with subsection (2), because they must be involved and there must have been discussions between them and the sponsors. I have been in local government for many years and an hon. Member for 15 years. Social problems like this can be solved only with financial assistance from the Government. Is the
… best that can be made in the circumstances
meant to cover the individual's circumstances alone, or his or her circumstances


plus the second wage packet, as it were, to which we are entitled from the State and to which we all contribute?
I cannot understand the shyness of the Government in this matter. While I do not expect them to regard me with greater favour than any of my hon. Friends—indeed, after tonight I may be regarded in a lesser light than at any time during my association with the movement—I feel justified in asking them to state their position over the Bill and to say what negotiations took place on the top floor of this building between people in high places in another place and others in an effort to iron out the problem which we are discussing.
9.30 a.m.
We have a right to know what the Government's intention is about this. It is not good enough to put a man or woman or children into this obscure and difficult position in which someone can say, "This is the best we can do". You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, probably remember other days when we appealed for justice and wages for impoverished people. We remember the days when boards of guardians in West Derby and elsewhere said, "This is the best we can do". That sort of wording should have disappeared from our legislation. I am delighted to add my support for the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: This is one of the parts of the Bill that we have lived with for two years, and we have had many discussions on it. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will remember that we spent long periods on it in Committee last year. It is part of the five-year rule of the Bill which is the sticking point for many of us who would be glad to accept the Bill and who see the necessity for reform in this field. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Pontypool and the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) have not at least offered some concession on this matter.
It seems a contradiction of "fair and reasonable" to tag on
the best that can be made in the circumstances.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said, if the court takes account of the last part of the provision, it can be doing a disservice and making it impossible to be fair and reasonable. It is important that

the promoters should consider the relationship of these words to the context of the whole subsection. The subsection sets out what has to be considered: age, health, conduct, earning capacity, financial resources and financial obligations. It does not lay down anything about future financial advantage to the party concerned.
It could be that at a given date the party seeking divorce would be likely to come into a legacy. He or she might be a beneficiary under a trust and might have a certain amount of modest resources affected by the market at that time. The dividends that party was getting on that day might bear no relation to those received a year or two years before. It may be just the time when the income is down. The court may know perfectly well that it is a temporary situation and that two years, or even six months, afterwards the income of the individual will be likely to go up again. None of these things can be taken into account because of the phrase
the best that can be made in the circumstances".
The circumstances on the day of the divorce hearing come before the court.

Sir L. Heald: There may be nothing in the "kitty" on that day.

Mr. Lewis: As my right hon. and learned Friend says, there may be nothing in the "kitty" on that day, but there may be very near future possibilities.
A person who is seeking a divorce and wants to avoid his financial obligations can ensure that at that day he has no financial resources or that he has only the minimum of financial resources. Yet the court must disregard this. If the court were simply to have to take into account "reasonable and fair" it could not disregard any jiggery-pokery. It would have to consider the situation in the long-term as well as in the short-term, for the future as well as for the present. If the last part of paragraph (b) is retained, it will be possible for anybody who seeks to cheat to do so with impunity.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman seems to be confining his attention to that part of subsection (2) which refers to financial resources, but a little earlier the


subsection says that "all the circumstances" are to be considered. If the person concerned was about to receive a legacy, or if it was known that the dividend on his shares was to be increased, that would be one of the circumstances which the court would take into account in addition to his financial resources at that date.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that the Clause defines circumstances as "all the circumstances". The impact of the term "all the circumstances" is destroyed by the words
or the best that can be made in the circumstances".
As I see it, those words are an instruction to the court to take into account what it can see the circumstances are on the day. This is the difficulty we have been in from the beginning. It has been argued that the respondent may be in prison. It would be right for the court to take into account the situation of the man as he is in prison. If the man was serving a two-year or three-year sentence and was to come out to a fortune, the court should not take into account only the fact that he is in prison. It is not unknown for people to come out from gaol and be very flush, not necessarily on the proceeds of the offence that has landed them in gaol. If in the case of a divorce the woman is suffering all the disadvantages of the divorce as well as the disadvantage of having had her husband in gaol and the odium attaching to her as well as to her husband from that fact, it is right that she should have the advantage of a right financial arrangement related to what the husband's position will be when he comes out of prison, not related to the position at the day of the hearing.

Mr. Waddington: Is not the right answer that the man in gaol, the guilty party who, as a result of his being in gaol, is unable to maintain his innocent wife, is not deserving of our support and help and is not deserving of a divorce? Why should we put ourselves out for him?

Mr. Lewis: That is another point of view, and I accept it.
It is clear—we have argued this time out of number—that the court will be in extreme difficulty when it has to seek a

financial arrangement for the woman in the divorce if it has to take into account the words
the best that can be made in the circumstances".
We cannot disregard the situation in which, after two years, we are still placed in arguing the Bill when we do not yet know what the Government's financial arrangements are. There are two kinds of financial arrangement. One kind are those that can easily be made and defined by the court because someone happens to have behind him a certain amount of private income, a good salary or the promise of a very satisfactory pension. But in most divorce cases which come before the courts, if the Bill goes through—I believe that there will be a large number of divorce cases and that the numbers will increase—people will depend upon what the Government are able to do. We believe that this will mean considerable expenditure and will add a cost to the social services. It will be a new arm of the social services. Indeed, it would not be right that the Bill should go through if the Government were not prepared to back their support of the Bill with their financial support to those who will be affected by it.
The courts will, therefore, have to take into account what the Government are doing financially; but we do not yet know. Will the courts know? When will they know? We are in the position that we have to pass the Bill completely in the dark. I am not sure that the Solicitor-General is not in the dark. I have an idea that in his discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer his right hon. Friend has given him a clear indication that he has no money available. The Chancellor has said to him, "At the moment, I can give you no definite answer on any arrangements that can be made within the agreement of the Treasury."
If that is so, the Solicitor-General should say so to the House, and particularly to those who are sponsoring the Bill. He should make it clear that there can be no financial support by the Government or that their financial support will depend upon a continuing and permanent improvement in our balance of trade figures and an easier budgetary situation.
Whatever is the position, two matters are important for the courts: the financial position of the individual and the


financial support that is likely to be proposed by the Government. In my view, it is right and proper that the words "in the circumstances" should be left out and that the court should make its arrangement only on the basis of what is fair and reasonable.

9.45 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: In my view, there is a case to be made for the words
or the best that can be made in the circumstances.
I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said: that, approached in a certain manner and spoken with a certain nuance, the words appear, perhaps, to introduce a somewhat undesirable tone. There is, however, a perfectly legitimate objective in them.
The way I ask the House to consider the point is this. If the financial provision made is the best that can be made in the circumstances, it is likely, on that hypothesis, that the court will ordinarily hold it to be reasonable and fair.
The danger, it has always seemed to me—I tried to argue this case in Committee—of omitting the words
or the best that can be made in the circumstances
is that, without them, the court might be led to hold that, if a petitioner had done all in his power but nevertherless had provided the respondent with less than she needed, the decree could not be made absolute. That is the serious argument which I put, especially in response to the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is really no case to be made for these words at all.
If the consequence of omitting those words is, or might be, as I have adumbrated it, that would, in effect, be to introduce one law for the rich and another for the poor, an outcome which no hon. Member on either side would desire. For the record, the point was made, I venture respectfully to say, with the greatest clarity and force in our consideration of the question in Committee by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), whom I do not see here this morning.
I turn now to the larger issue which was raised by several hon. Members both on this Amendment and on an

earlier one, when the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) anticipated, as it were, at least some of the factors which arise here. I fully appreciate that the question of the best financial provision which can be made in the circumstances is one which should be judged in the context, so far as it can fairly and properly be made known to the House, of the wider issue of financial provision and the Government's intentions. I recognise the importance of that, and I wish to recapitulate what the position is in that regard. There has not been a substantial change in the matter since I last enunciated it. But my submission is that what we have to say regarding financial provision has weight and substance, by which I mean that it constitutes something which well deserves the attention of the House.
Under this head, I recapitulate that the Law Commission has told my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that it expects that its report on financial provision will be made available by July, and that it will be recommending the extension of the court's powers to award secured provision and lump-sum payments, to order the settlement of the property of the spouses for the benefit of themselves and the children, and to vary those settlements. The House would not expect me to make a commitment under this head before we have the report. Naturally, no commitment can be made at this stage, but my noble Friend has every hope of being able to introduce legislation to implement these proposals next Session. If that can be done it is his intention, should the present Bill become law, not to bring it into force under Clause 11 until such legislation has been introduced. He has made this plain.
The account I have given is one of substantial preparations being made under this all-important head. It would not be fair to disparage the extent to which the Government are going in their effort to inform the House about the true situation under this head. What we are doing—and we are doing it because we think it right to do it and because we think it is of service to the House—is to let the House know what we expect to be the content of a report of the Law Commission which we have not yet


received. We are letting the House know the type of provision that we may expect will be recommended, and we are giving the assurance that although there cannot be a commitment as to future legislation, these matters will be the subject of legislation in the next Session. That is what my noble Friend has said. In addition, he has said—and he has been criticised for this in a fashion that is quite unfair to him—that the Bill will not be implemented under the provisions for bringing it into effect until that legislation from the Law Commission has been introduced.

Mr. Dan Jones: In view of what my hon. and learned Friend has now said, is not he prepared to agree that this is putting the cart before the horse? Will he inform the House whether the moneys in question are to come from social security? Has an estimate been made of how much it will involve?

The Solicitor-General: I have always taken the view on this matter that the kind of criticism that has been levelled against us for the way in which these proposals are put forward can only be logically pursued to the point where it is said that it is unwise to do anything by way of reform of the divorce laws unless one makes one's change in the law in a Measure dealing compendiously not only with divorce and judicial separation as such but with financial provisions—the whole field of social security provisions and matrimonial property provisions. That is the logical outcome of this line of criticism. Hon. Members would probably agree with this. It may be that there is a sound argument for that point of view.
We put the rate of progress of social reform into great jeopardy and peril if we require too great and compendious treatment of these matters. Let me illustrate that. I mentioned, among the matters that should be treated compendiously, the matter of matrimonial property. That is now the subject of a study by the Law Commission. It is a very complex subject which lawyers on both sides will recognise. It will not be possible for legislation under that heading to be introduced next Session, because I do not expect that the researches of the Commission, although

proceeding, can achieve a result within the time that such a programme would require. If hon. Members call upon the Government to indulge in this degree of compendious treatment of these matters, they must pay the price of delaying the substantial reform. That is how I put the case. I invite the House to consider it. There is a good deal of substance and sense in it.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the Solicitor-General was giving way to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was not the impression that the Chair got.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that I did not make it clear. I was giving way and the hon. Gentleman was the first in the queue.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the operation of this legislation would be held up pending the introduction of further legislation following the report of the Law Commission. Am I to understand that it is only the introduction and not the passing of the legislation, because there is a substantial difference? The House ought to know whether it was a slip of the tongue.

The Solicitor-General: I trust that on a matter of that kind I would not be guilty of a slip of the tongue, although I know how easy it is to do that sort of thing. I did mean "introduce."

Hon. Members: No.

The Solicitor-General: Yes. This is the position. My noble Friend will not make the order to implement the Bill before the House until the financial provisions Bill coming from the Law Commission has been introduced. I cannot help feeling that the critics of my hon. Friend's Bill, on financial matters, are falling into the fault of trying to have things both ways.
10.0 a.m.
When my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor indicates that he would not wish to make an order under Clause 11(3) until after the Bill dealing with the financial provisions, expected from the


Law Commission, has been introduced, he is criticised for taking upon himself greater responsibility as regards the timing of implementation of Parliament's declared policies in a manner that is undesirable. Yet if this Bill is considered without the kind of safeguard he has offered, it is said that it leaves the financial position in a wholly unsatisfactory state.
The critics cannot have it both ways. We have gone a very considerable distance to indicate as far as we properly can what is likely to be the character of the legislation to be introduced in regard to the financial provisions. I repeat that, to meet some of the objections—and perhaps the greater part—levelled against us it would be necessary to resort to a compendious Measure, including divorce, judicial separation, matrimonial property, financial provision and social security, and the price we should have to pay in practical terms would be a substantial deferment of the reform.
It is for the House to consider whether there is substance in that objection to such a course but the Government think that it is a true objection and that it is desirable that the House should come to a decision upon this matter in the context that we can offer—and it is a context which I have fully explained.
Let the House bear in mind that we are discussing a matter not in vacuo; far from it, because not only have we told the House what the future intentions are and the kind of time programme we envisage but this discussion is also taking place in the context of two successive Bills receiving Second Readings in successive Sessions and going through two prolonged Committee stages.
The matter derives, among other sources, from the Archbishops' Committee and from the work of the Law Commission. Whatever the critics may say, I suggest that the Bill comes before the House founded upon most careful and sustained research, long experience—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is drifting into the merits of the Bill itself. We cannot discuss the Bill at the moment:

The Solicitor-General: I acknowledge the correctness of that Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dan Jones: I put three points to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and he has answered but one. We are entitled to know whether the financial provisions of this Clause, which he estimates will be considerable, will come from social security and, if so, whether any estimation of the sum involved has been made.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is early in the morning. We could have little less noise. Mrs. Knight.

Mrs. Knight: With the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, I have never heard a poorer argument advanced from the Front Bench. His customary bite and lucidity have been entirely lacking today. I can only put it down to the labours of the last 12 hours. Some of us who have been here, as I have myself, for almost all of the 12 hours may be feeling the effects of this, too.
The fact that the Solicitor-General, on whose answers so many people outside and inside the House today depend, has been so rambling in his remarks, doubtless because of fatigue, underlies the difficulties to which the House has been subjected because of the incredible time at which we are forced to debate the Bill.
The Solicitor-General said at one stage that if the Amendment were to be accepted and these words were to be left out, there would be one law for the rich and another for the poor. But that is precisely what the Bill does, and the extension achieved by the Amendment alters that situation not one whit.
At one stage, if I understood him correctly, the Solicitor-General said that with the words "or the best that can be made in the circumstances" in the Bill the court would understand that there had to be reasonable and fair arrangements. In the first part of paragraph (b) it is said that the financial provision shall be reasonably fair. The whole point of the Amendment and the words that it seeks to leave out is that they qualify the earlier Amendment. Either it is reasonable and fair, or it is the best that can be done in the circumstances.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate that what the


Solicitor-General has said is that he accepts that the Bill provides for the supplicant something that is reasonable and fair if the individual has private means and a private income, and that the other provision has been tacked on to the end? What would be fairer would be to have a Bill under whose provisions the Government had to provide the means. That is why a Treasury Minister sits alongside the Solicitor-General, to make sure that he does not give the game away.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a speech. Interventions must be brief, not second speeches.

Mrs. Knight: I take my hon. Friend's point. I shall not comment on it further since he made the point clearly.
What the Minister is saying this morning is, "Yes, it is right that this puts the cart before the horse." But he intends to make the cart wait until the horse gallops round the shafts and gets in front. This is quite extraordinary.
It is well known that it is felt, both in the House, and outside it, that we are not being given real promises at all, but sops. If there were real concern about the financial position of a divorced wife, the Bill could easily have been held back until the social benefits had been provided. It is absurd to say that the House must come to a decision when the "bull" point on which the House might come to a decision is withheld and the situation is not known.

Mr. Maddan: Did my hon. Friend comprehend from the Solicitor-General's remarks the possibility that the Bill envisaged for next Session may have to amend the present Bill before the House, to which apparently we are now having to run up a flag as if all depended on it?

Mrs. Knight: Yes. This was one of the conclusions that one drew from the rather rambling and not in the least helpful speech of the Solicitor-General. The reason some of us feel so strongly about the Amendment is that all along the sponsors have made no attempt to meet the well-known objections of large sections of the population, of which this is one of the more clearly expressed.
The sponsors know perfectly well that this is the second point—paragraph (e) is the first—about which people are desperately concerned, but they have not come one inch of the way towards meeting the worries being expressed in this House and outside.
With these words in the Clause, the best that can be made may be extremely poor. It may be utterly disastrous. Certainly, we can all visualise circumstances where the new wife has several children and the old wife who is perhaps 50-plus, has children who are all grown up. The best that most men earning an average income could arrange in those circumstances would probably mean that the forcibly divorced wife was left in virtual penury.
We heard about the prisoner—let us call him Convict 99. He was introduced by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is not now present. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are the Liberals?".] The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) paused in mid-speech, as it were, to accept that there was a case perhaps for the prisoner which he had not thought about too much. We then had Convict 99 brought up by two other hon. Members. I cannot see how Convict 99 comes into this matter at all. If he is incarcerated, surely he is not likely to contract another marriage—[Interruption.] Even if he does contract another marriage—and I know that it may be possible—he will not be earning much money. But we are not arguing about a deserted wife have half of nothing. This is not the normal course of the argument. It would merely be a question of which wife would draw National Assistance, and that is outside the terms of the debate.
One final important point in this context concerns pensions about which nothing has been said by the Solicitor-General. I went along to pick up my mail at half past eight this morning. Among the letters that I received was one from a lady raising this very point. She writes:
In April this year, at the age of 67, I was given my old age pension.
She had explained earlier in the letter that her husband had left her.
What I want to know is what will happen to me should my husband decide to divorce me. I am the innocent one. Shall I lose my pension?


We have not heard anything about pensions. Some of us would like to know whether
the best that can be made in the circumstances
will mean that the new wife will have the pension and the old wife will not. At all events, leaving out these words highlights that Parliament feels that the respondent has a right to reasonable and fair treatment. If these words are in, it is quite clear that Parliament feels that not only should the respondent be able to be divorced against her will, but, if she is left in penury, it will not worry the House of Commons very much.

Mr. Abse: Unless I intervene the hon. Lady will not hear my reply to her speech, since she makes speeches and does not wait for the answers.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief and must relate to the subject matter of the debate.

Mr. Abse: To help the hon. Lady with her correspondent, may I point out that that woman would receive her pension immediately if she was divorced. Indeed, on such facts as the hon. Lady has given, it may be that it would be increased because she would not now have the pension as a wife. She would get a retirement pension, which would be an increased amount. Therefore, before the hon. Lady jumps to a conclusion, perhaps she will make inquiries, as she may be giving bad advice and taking money away from the lady if she does not allow her husband to divorce her.

Mrs. Knight: I was not making an observation; I was asking a question. If the hon. Gentleman will not be quite so hypocritical in the way that he says he is trying to help, that would be a help to me. I have been here for as much of the night as he has. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman feels that he must interrupt like that. I was just coming to a conclusion. I did not jump to any conclusion. I asked a question. I did not give any advice, I sought it.
I want to raise just one other matter which is worrying me, and it is relevant to what we are discussing. The whole point about the Amendment is that if Parliament removes these words it is

stressing that the respondent has a right to reasonable and fair treatment, and if it leaves them in she is not.

10.15 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad that at last the Solicitor-General intervened. In view of what was said in Committee, it would have facilitated our discussion if the hon. and learned Gentleman had intervened a little earlier than he did. I had hoped that between the time of the sending of the Lord Chancellor's letter to the sponsors of the Bill in Committee and the Report stage in the House the Solicitor-General would have been able to tell us a great deal more about what the Lord Chancellor had in mind.
I think that it would help if the Lord Chancellor's letter were published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because many hon. Members who have taken part in these discussions were not members of the Standing Committee, and, therefore, have not seen the original letter which committed the Lord Chancellor to some action before the Bill became law. I want to repeat what I said in Committee. It may be that the Lord Chancellor will not be there, and I hope that he will not.
If the Amendment is not accepted, such safeguard as there is in the Bill will no longer be there. There will be no safeguard unless these words are removed. In her previous, very interesting, speech my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) read the letter which she had received from the Overseas Service pensioners. That letter referred to the law as it is today. It did not give any indication of what the position would be under the new law of the wife who had been divorced against her will. This emphasises again what most of us have been saying, that once again, as with the Abortion Act, the whole situation has been badly prepared, badly thought out, and that it will be disastrous for those whose interests we wish to protect.
As many of us believe that some provision should be made to deal with marriages which have irretrievably broken down, it would have been very much simpler if that had been dealt with now, and the more controversial issues left until we had received the report of the Law Commission, following which the Lord Chancellor will be in a


position to let the House know what the legislation is going to be for the future. That would have been quite easy, and it would have simplified the position. There would then not have been all this controversy and tremendous anxiety throughout the country.
I wish to read out a list of the women's organisations which are supporting my right hon. and learned Friend. The attitude of some hon. Members is monstrous in ignoring the vast body of responsible women who have taken a great deal of trouble to look into this matter and who wish the House of Commons to pay attention to their representations. It was delightful of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston to refrain from taking up the time of the House in reading out the list of these organisations, but I think it important that occasionally the time of the House should be occupied so that the House can note the important bodies that support the view which was put forward by my right hon. and noble Friend.

Sir L. Heald: I am not noble.

Dame Irene Ward: I beg my right hon. and learned Friend's pardon. He may be noble one day; one never knows.
The list is as follows: The Association of Inner Wheel Clubs, the British Federation of University Women, the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Disablement Income Group, the Educational Centres Association, the Family Planning Association, the Federation of Soroptimist Clubs of Great Britain and Ireland, the Health Visitors Association, the Institutional Management Association, the Medical Women's Federation, the National Association for Mental Health, the National Association of Women Pharmacists, the National Association of Women's Clubs.
The National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, the National Labour Women's Advisory Committee, the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations (Women's National Advisory Committee), the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds, the National Women Citizens' Association, the Nursery School Association of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Royal College of Nursing and National Council of Nurses in the United Kingdom, the St. John Ambulance Association, the St. John Ambulance Brigade (Nursing Corps Division), the Salvation Army, the Toc H. Women's Association, the Trades Union Congress, Women's Advisory Committee; the Women's Advisory Council on Solid Fuel, the Women's Gas Federation—[Laughter.] I can assure hon. Members that women use gas very effectively on many occasions. The list also contains the Women's Liberal Federation and the Young Women's Christian Association.
The resolution to which my hon. Friend referred was also supported by 165 local standing conferences. With some parliamentary experience behind me, I feel that we have never had such a large body of women's opinion representing all sections of national life.

Mr. Dan Jones: I hope that the House appreciates that the only women who have not supported the resolution are the Conservative women [HON. MEMBERS: "They have."] I beg pardon.

Dame Irene Ward: I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but I read out the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations (Women's National Advisory Committee).

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has withdrawn.

Dame Irene Ward: All I am saying is that in my Parliamentary recollection, although there have always been bodies of all kinds supporting various Bills that have been brought before the House, I do not remember such a representative body of women. This tottering Government are very keen about the stability of family life—at least, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is—and the stability of family life is represented in these organisations and they should pay some heed to them. The trouble with this Government is that they think that they know everything and do not want advice. The women of the country do not want this Clause, giving unilateral divorce, and they are the ones who will mainly be affected.
We are entitled to know what the Lord Chancellor will do. The Solicitor-General speaks in rounded terms, in a


very nice voice but when he has finished we do not really know what he has been talking about. That is disastrous for the Bill. I hope that, at the last gasp, the Government will listen to reason. I have given up on the hon. Member for Pontypool, who is terrified of giving way because he does not know the answers to the questions which he will be asked. I wanted to have a go at him because he had a most unfair go at one of my hon. Friends. I should like to have many goes at him, because I was on the Standing Committee, and he deserves it.
I hope that the Government will advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Clegg: My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has just given a formidable list of women's organisations who will be after the Solicitor-General's blood, but there is one other treat in store for him. He will have some explaining to do to his noble Friend the Baroness Summerskill, who might by then have changed her mind about boxing.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was very revealing. After we had been criticised through the night for daring to suggest that the Government were anything but neutral about the Bill, he said in the clearest terms that they were backing it. It was very significant that he often referred to the Bill as "ours".
10.30 a.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what was likely to be contained in the proposed legislation in the forthcoming Report of the Law Commission. I have some knowledge of this, having submitted a paper to the Commission on this point. One matter to which he did not refer was the problem arising in the case of a private pension scheme. It is well known that many such schemes provide for a pension to be paid to a widow, and it is impossible for a scheme to change such a provision. It cannot choose to pay the pension to a divorced wife instead of the deceased man's widow.
The importance of this point is contained in the words that we are proposing to delete
… the best that can be made in the circumstances".

If a man in a pension scheme petitions for divorce, the judge has to consider the fact that if he grants a divorce any pension payable on the petitioner's death will go to the woman whom he is proposing to marry and, if he is not proposing to remarry, it will be lost completely. In that event, the judge will want to compensate the wife for the loss of that pension. However, in such a case, a tremendous capital sum will be required, even to create a pension of £10 or £15 a week, and that will probably be quite beyond the pocket of the average man.
In such a situation, it would not be right for the judge to decide to grant a divorce when the petitioner has only sufficient means to provide a pittance to compensate his first wife in the event of his death. That cannot be right, and we should not pass this legislation unless such problems can be solved.
This is a Private Member's Bill, but the solution of the problem that I have raised depends on another Bill being introduced by a Government Minister. If we accept this Measure without some satisfactory safeguards, we shall be taking a tremendous leap in the dark. The Solicitor-General said that we should have to wait for the further Report on matrimonial property, but in this Clause we are proposing to deprive some people of rights which they have already. They should not be deprived of them until we have all the information. Until we have it, we shall not get a fair result, and that is a quite scandalous position.

Sir C. Black: I was in favour of the Amendment when it was first moved, and everything that has happened since confirms my view that this House should accept it.
We are concerned with the words
… reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances.
If the best that can be made in the circumstances is reasonable and fair, the words are superfluous, and it is right to delete them as the Amendment proposes. If the words
… the best that can be made in the circumstances
mean something different from "reasonable and fair", it must mean unreasonable and unfair, and, if it means that, it is unacceptable to a majority of hon.


Members. The case for this Amendment is overwhelming.
We have heard an extraordinary statement from the Solicitor-General. He says that we cannot be told at present what the financial provision is to be. Apparently no one knows. He says that we may be told in the next Session of Parliament what provision will be made, and legislation will be introduced to deal with it; meanwhile, if this Measure gets on to the Statute Book it will not come into effect until the financial provision has been made in the next Session of Parliament. That makes it even more monstrous that we have had to go through the ordeal of sitting for 12½ hours following the conclusion of yesterday's business.

Mr. David Mitchell: It is not when the financial provisions become effective. It is when legislation is introduced, which is a very different matter.

Sir C. Black: Anyhow, it will not happen until next Session. That being the case, why this Bill should have been selected by the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We debated that some time ago. I still remember.

Sir C. Black: Mr. Speaker, I touched on it because the Solictor-General dealt with the matter at great length when you were not here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If Mr. Solicitor-General erred in my absence, that does not excuse another sinner.

Sir C. Black: Then I must try to find another occasion on which to deal with the matter.
This has been an extremely unsatisfactory episode. Hardly anything that we have been told in reply to this debate has satisfied us. I hope that the House will have no hesitation in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just asked at the Vote Office for a copy of the Order Paper setting out today's business. I am told that none has been issued and that there is no Order Paper for Friday. I wanted an Order Paper to look at the Bills due to be considered at 11 o'clock today, including one of my own. In view

of what I have been told, I must conclude that someone has assumed that Thursday's business will kill the private Members' business set down for Friday. That may happen, but it is wrong that there should be an assumption that it will happen. It also indicates that the Government Whips have arranged this situation. I hope that you will be able to help the House, because some hon. Members want the Order Paper for Friday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have before me the Order Book. Appearing on the front page is all the business which will be taken on Friday at 11 o'clock if this Bill has completed its stages by then.

Sir T. Beamish: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
We have been sitting for 20 hours continuously, and that is far too long for right hon. and hon. Members to be at their best and do really good work. This sitting follows three late nights on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when the House adjourned between one and two in the morning. It has been a very tough week. In the last Division only about a quarter of the House voted; yet we are debating a major Measure which has wide social implications.
This is an intolerable situation which brings Parliament into great disrepute. That is my reason for suggesting that we should adjourn further consideration of this Measure.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member need not remind Mr. Speaker of the lengths of time for which the House has worked for the whole of this week and, indeed, through this long debate. I am not prepared to accept a dilatory Motion.

Sir S. McAdden: In supporting the Amendment, I must say at once that I can recall only one hon. Member who has ever been kind to me about a speech I have made and that was the Solicitor-General. He followed me after I made my maiden speech many years ago, and, that being so, perhaps the phrases he then used about it must not be thought to contain all the veracity at his command, as we all know how kind the House is to maiden speakers. It is therefore with the greater sorrow that I have to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman


that I do not think that he has enlightened the House very much.
It seemed to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman was at some pains to try to explain to us in legal language that what is perfectly clear in plain English does not mean what it says. The words in Subsection (2)(b) are:
… the financial provision made by the petitioner for the respondent is reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances.
The Solicitor-General told us that, in his view, so long as the financial provision was the best the man could possibly afford the judge would undoubtedly hold that that provision was fair and reasonable. If that is the case, the words in the Amendment ought not to be retained at all.
The Solicitor-General did not enlighten us very much further as to the contribution the regulations to be made by the State would make in regard to the future income of the unwillingly divorced partner. He did not tell us what the Government had in mind. It is true, and it surprised me, that he let us have a peep into a report of the Law Commission which he has not seen, which seemed to be a most disreputable way of trying to argue. It is, of course, in line with much that has been done in an attempt to hasten this Bill through its various stages. We have seen this being done constantly. We have it from the Solicitor-General that we need not worry too much about the financial provision for the unwillingly divorced spouse, because the Law Commission has something up its sleeve.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that we need not really worry overmuch, because the provisions of this present Bill will not come into effect until the Lord Chancellor names the date, and that he had it on the authority of his noble Friend that he would not name the date until the other legislation had been introduced in a new Session of Parliament. It is all very nice to let us into these secrets, but it seems to me that there is no need for this hurry if the date is not to be named until the next Session of Parliament when, at unspecified time, legislation may or may not be introduced. If that is the case, why should we sit up all night long because the Government usurp private Members'

time in order to get this Measure through the House of Commons?
Hon. Members on this side who have drawn the attention of the House to the words in the Amendment are acting in the very best interests of the unwillingly divorced spouse, because they seek to make it clear that the financial provision made should be reasonable and fair and that this other nonsense about
… or the best that can be made in the circumstances
should be deleted. I hope that it will be deleted.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Percival: I expressed my appreciation to the promoter of the Bill for having, as I have reason to believe, persuaded some of his supporters, who would otherwise have been inclined to seek to bring the debate to an end, to refrain from so doing for a little time so that a few more hon. Members might speak on this important matter. I am obliged to him, and I will try to respond by being as brief as I can.
Some very harsh things have been said about the Solicitor-General, and I have to say that I, too, regard his answer as very unsatisfactory. In saying that, I mean no personal discourtesy. His answer is very unsatisfactory because there is not a satisfactory answer: he could not, therefore, give anything but an unsatisfactory answer. He is in an impossible position in trying to the best of his ability to give an assurance about something which the Law Commission proposes to do but has not done, and an assurance about what his noble Friend will do when we know that he cannot bind his noble Friend to do anything in particular and when his noble Friend has not yet the means to decide what he will do.
It has been agreed all through that this provision is of great importance because under Clause 2(1)(e)—and this provision is related specifically to that Clause—it is necessary to provide some protection for women who are so divorced. That is the whole purpose. What has emerged during the course of the debate is that the provision does not give any protection.
The Solicitor-General's reasons for retaining the words
… or the best that can be made in the circumstances


I can understand, but the consequence of their retention is to provide no protection where there is no money. He said that none of us would want one law for the rich and another law for the poor, and, of course, we do not, but that is just what we shall have.
Clause 6 will be very useful where a family has a lot of money. It will be a most wonderful instrument, not to put too fine a point of it, for blackmail, because the wife of a wealthy husband can say, "You have got your decree nisi but, my boy, you do not get a decree absolute until you have made me reasonable and fair provision under Clause 6." To the family with wealth, Clause 6 will be a boon, but it will not mean a thing where there is no money.
We all know very well that the vast majority of cases with which we shall be concerned are cases where there is not money, or certainly where there is not enough money to make reasonable provision for two families. Whilst we welcome what the Solicitor-General thinks the Law Commission may recommend, and whilst it would be useful if the law were changed so that the courts had wider power to secure provision—although those powers are already very wide indeed; but if there is to be any restriction on property settlement, let them be wider—to talk about secure provision of settlements of property and variations of settlements is, in respect of the kind of households with which we shall be concerned under this Clause, nonsense. There is no property from which to make secure provision, and certainly there are no settlements to be varied in the kind of household for which we want to provide protection.
It would therefore appear at the moment that whilst these recommendations of the Law Commission will be awaited with interest, and though they may be of some advantage in the general context of making maintenance provisions, they are really irrelevant to what we are considering here, which is how to give protection to the wife where there is not any money.
We have here the question of pensions. That is why I particularly wanted to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because this harks right back to Second Reading, when the Solicitor-General intervened to

assist us, when we first came to this kind of point, by pointing out that the whole scale of social security payments was to be reviewed. He said, quite fairly, that he could not forecast what the amount would be, but that what he had in mind was that there might be some restructuring of the pensions which would avoid the adverse effect of the Bill on pension rights. We knew that it would be difficult. At the time he could give no assurance because it was a very difficult subject. We must assume that no answer has yet been found.
But in the kind of family about which we are worried, the widow's pension is one of the most variable items, and unless and until the Government can give some indication of some change in the law which will provide some protection in households where there is little money, we can place no reliance on this Clause, especially while it contains the words
or the best that can be done in the circumstances".
I therefore hope that the promoters, who have kindly, courteously and properly agreed to look at other matters, will look also at this matter.
I put it to them that there is an obligation on them to look at it again. The Solicitor-General has given us all the help he can give, but what he said is wholly unsatisfactory in the context of providing protection for these women. It is no exaggeration to say that Clause 2(1,e) has been sold to the public on the basis that protection would be provided for the women who otherwise would come out of it badly. It appears after these debates that on the present wording of Clause 6 there will be little, if any, protection, and I therefore respectfully suggest that there is an obligation on the promoters to look at the whole question again.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you would like me to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). You probably had the big Order Paper in front of you and you were probably unaware that the ordinary daily Order Paper has not been printed and is not available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Lady that I understood exactly every


single word that was uttered by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis).

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. It is monstrous action by the Government, who must have ordered the Order Papers not to be Printed. They should not have done that. It is very bad administration.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether the Government are monstrous and whether the administration is bad is not a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Dame Irene Ward: I know, Mr. Speaker, but I thought you would like to know about it.

Mr. Abse: The suggestion is that the court should hold that if the petitioner, having met all the other requirements, nevertheless provided the respondent with less than she needed, the decree could not be made absolute. Is that fair? Would the Amendment, if it were accepted, make the Bill a piece of class legislation designed for the rich only?
It is best if I get away for the moment from the question of settlement and annunities. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) is correct when he says that "fair and reasonable" can deal with the problem of the rich. What, he asks, was the situation of those who did not have property? The contribution of the Solicitor-General in indicating the legislation to be introduced next Session is an indication that where there is property the consequences of this Bill will mean that there will be still greater security, in the event of a divorce, for the family, which breaks up where there are means available for the family.
I will give two instances to illustrate the great danger of putting the Amendment into the Bill. The type of people I shall use as illustration will make it clear that we should retain these words in the Bill, however unsatisfactory some hon. Members may think them to be. Let us consider the situation of an old-aged pensioner who, for many years, has lived with a woman a little younger than himself. The old-age pensioner has been separated from his wife for 20 or 30 years—and that is typical of hundreds of cases which occur.
Let us assume that there was a maintenance order against the old-age pensioner, as would normally be the case, he having separated from his wife, for whatever reason, 20 or 30 years ago. He keeps up the payments for 20 to 30 years and then he has to cease work. He has a very small pension. He goes to the magistrates' court and says, "I have paid the maintenance to my wife for 20 or 30 years, but I can pay no longer because I have only a pension as income". The court takes that into account and, as every magistrate present knows, probably reduces the payment to a nominal order of 1s. or 2s. a week. That old-age pensioner has been waiting probably for decades for a Bill such as this. He wishes to marry the woman whom he regards as his wife and with whom he has lived for all those years.
The question which the House has to decide is whether he should be barred from obtaining a divorce if, as is quite clear, he is not in a position to provide a reasonable amount of settlement to his original wife. I may be asked how that wife manages to live, since she receives only 2s. a week or so in maintenance. The answer is that, unfortunately, she is living like thousands of other deserted wives with the aid of social security. That fact cannot be dodged. It is the present position.
The man has maintained the payments as long as he can. He has lived apart from his wife for 20 or 30 years. The House must answer the question: should he, because he is poor, be barred from obtaining a divorce? Or is it not right that he should have an opportunity to get a divorce in the same way as a man of wealth? He will have that opportunity only if we leave in the Clause the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out.
I will give a second illustration to show the House the problem which we are trying to overcome. It is that of a wife. Listening to some of the speeches, one would have thought that under the law wives are always regarded as innocent parties. In fact, under the law, many of them are the so-called guilty parties. This wife left her husband 20 years ago. She has two illegitimate children by the other man, whom she regards as her


husband. She may be earning enough to keep herself. The man she left when the marriage broke down 20 years ago had no means. He has suffered an accident and is capable of earning only very little or incapable of earning at all. He, too, is living on social security.
The woman is the petitioner under the Bill and she goes to court. It will be appreciated that under these provisions there is no distinction between man and woman. If it were a wealthy woman in these circumstances, the court would say, "We think it fair and reasonable that you should make a contribution to your husband". That would be a precondition of the divorce. But the woman in the case which I have mentioned will not be able to make that contribution. She has managed to keep herself. She has two illegitimate children by the common law husband with whom she has been living for many years. The man with whom she is living is just scraping along.
The House must decide whether we should debar her from obtaining a divorce because she cannot be ordered to give a fair and reasonable amount to her husband. Or should we say, as the sponsors of the Bill say, that the judge must have discretion to order what is best in the circumstances?

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Maddan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It being 11 o'clock and in view of the statement of the Leader of the House—reported in column 1674 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 12th June—in which he advised us to wait and see what happened to the progress of the Bill before the Government made a determination about the fate of the other Measures on the Order Paper—which has not been published, but which is in the Order Book—would you agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is an appropriate time for me to ask you to accept a Motion to adjourn the debate?
While a similar Motion moved earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stanford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) was not accepted by the Chair, at that lime we had not had the reply of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to the

Amendment, which concerns the financial provisions of the Bill. We have now substantially had his reply and have dealt with the major Amendments which have been selected for the Report stage.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have now reached two definitive positions; a definitive position in regard to the progress of the Bill and that definitive position which the Leader of the House advised us to await before deciding whether we had to lose this Friday's normal business as set down on the Order Paper. It is for these reasons that I suggest that we now adjourn the debate.

Mr. Speaker: We are past 11 o'clock and today's business has been lost. I am not prepared to accept a dilatory Motion.

Mr. Waddington: I urge the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to accept that the example which he has given is a peculiarly bad one, because the practice of the courts is to make the husband pay maintenance to the wife save in the most exceptional circumstances. In the case to which he referred I am sure that the judge would have acted under Clause 6(2)(a) of the Bill and would have found the petitioner not required to make any financial provision to the respondent, which means that Clause 6(2)(b) would not have arisen.

Mr. Abse: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct. I have been giving instances representing the common run of events. It is for the House to decide whether it will exclude a high proportion of the people who constitute this present social problem. I do not think that I need add to what I have said, for the issue is clear and the effect of the financial provisions will be that when it comes to a family with means, there will be no difficulty.
I do not claim that matters will be improved as between the two types of family if the Bill is passed. However, I do claim that the position will not be worsened and that a large number of men and women will be released from the bondage of some archaic legislation.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Division No. 262.]
AYES
[11.4 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hamling, William
Paget, R. T.


Archer, Peter
Haseldine, Norman
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Ashley, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Astor, John
Hobden, Dennis
Pavitt, Laurence


Awdry, Daniel
Hooson, Emlyn
Pentland, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bell, Ronald
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hunt, John
Rankin, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roebuck, Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Chapman, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silverman, Julius


Coe, Denis
Lipton, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Concannon, J. D.
Lubbock, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
MacColl, James
Tapsell, Peter


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Macdonald, A. H.
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ellis, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Emery, Peter
Marks, Kenneth
Vickers, Dame Joan


English, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Mikardo, Ian
Whitaker, Ben


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ford, Ben
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Forrester, John
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fowler, Gerry
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


Freeson, Reginald
Nott, John
Mr. Christopher Price.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hawkins, Paul
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Russell, Sir Ronald


Body, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tuck, Raphael


Clegg, Walter
Kirk, Peter
Waddington, David


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ward, Dame Irene


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Woof, Robert


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin



Grieve, Percy
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper
Mr. Simon Mahon.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 263.]
AYES
[11.13 a.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Fortescue, Tim
Hill, J. E. B.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hunt, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhew, Victor
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Body, Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grieve, Percy
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Kirk, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clegg, Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Costain, A. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Longden, Gilbert


Delargy, Hugh
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
McAdden, Sir Stephen

The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 48.

The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 91.

McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Maddan, Martin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Silvester, Frederick
Woof, Robert


Millan, Bruce
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Worsley, Marcus


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter



Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


More, Jasper
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Simon Mahon and


Nott, John
Waddington, David
Mr. John Biggs-Davison.


Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oram, Albert E.


Albu, Austen
Gregory, Arnold
Padley, Walter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Archer, Peter
Hamling, William
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Awdry, Daniel
Haseldine, Norman
Pavitt, Laurence


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hobden, Dennis
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Bell, Ronald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rankin, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Huckfield, Leslie
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Roebuck, Roy


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crawshaw, Richard
Lipton, Marcus
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lubbock, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Emery, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Whitaker, Ben


Ennals, David
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
White, Mrs. Eirene


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John (Aberavon)



Ford, Ben
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Newens, Stan
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


Fowler, Gerry
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Christopher Price.


Freeson, Reginald
Ogden, Eric

Sir C. Black: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
In considering the financial obligations of the petitioner the court shall disregard any financial obligations the petitioner has incurred by reason of any association into which he has entered with another person".
Subsection (2) prescribes the considerations which the court must have in mind in fixing the payment to be made by the respondent. The relevant words are:
The court … shall consider all the circumstances, including the age, health, conduct, earning capacity, financial resources and financial obligations of each of the parties".
It has been pointed out repeatedly that in the great majority of cases those who will be involved in these arrangements will be people of small or limited means. It is in such cases that the difficulty arises of trying to do justice in circumstances in which it is almost impossible for justice to be done. Inevitably the question arises as to the relative claims of the legal wife and children as against the responsibilities of the husband who

has left his wife and is living with another woman by whom he may have had children—the woman who has been described by the promoter as the common law wife as against the legal wife.
Most people will agree that in any conflict of interest between the two the legal wife and her children should have priority in regard to available financial resources. After all, they have a legal claim which the common law wife does not have, at any rate at that point in time. They were first in the field, whereas the common law wife was only second in the field. It is undeniable that it is the legal wife and children who should be considered as having the priority when this conflict arises between the claims of the two women and their children.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend give us his views on the position arising where the legal wife has no children but there are illegitimate children of the second union? I am not sure how those children would fare if the Amendment were carried.

Sir C. Black: The Amendment does not deal with the question of children, so that question does not arise qua the wording of my Amendment. My Amendment would apply equally where the legal wife has no children and the common law wife has. I believe that the general view will be that the legal wife has a higher claim, a claim to be preferred and to be put on a higher footing than any claim that the common law wife may have. I am anxious to ensure that that position shall be preserved in the disposal of any funds that may be available between the two women and their families, if there be families.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has drafted the Amendment so that it would do what he desires. Any illegitimate child there may be has arrived
by reason of any association into which
the husband
has entered with another person".
That is how illegitimate children arrive.
As I—a non-lawyer—read the Amendment, their financial claims on the father, which I should have thought every hon. Member would have wanted to bear heavily in mind, would be completely cut out. The House should give careful attention to the claims which the children of the second woman may have, and never more so than where there are no children of the first union.
Therefore, although I voted for the previous Amendment, I shall be bound to vote against this one, because it would put the children of the second union completely out of court from the point of view of having any claim upon the financial substance of their father. I do not believe that is my hon. Friend's intention.

Mr. David Mitchell: I hope that the promoters of the Bill will consider accepting the Amendment. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I believe that if the Amendment is not made there will be no restraint upon a married man having an affair with another woman and going on to build up financial commitments in the shape of children born of that second union and, by so doing, reduce

his liability to maintain his own, at that time, legal wife.
If the Amendment or something similar is not written into the Bill, there will be no discipline on a man not to have an affair with another woman, have another family by her, and say to himself all that time, "It does not matter, because these children will have an equality of financial claim with the claim of my legal wife whom I have deserted".
The promoters of the Bill cannot slide over the Amendment, even at this late stage. There is a mood in the country of laxness which causes widespread concern. If the Bill were to be enacted without the Amendment, I fear that we should encourage a degree of immorality which no hon. Member would wish to encourage and which the sponsors of the Bill do not want to happen. If the sponsors of the Bill are unable to accept the Amendment, I shall be unable to support the Bill on Third Reading.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Abse: I understand the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), but, whatever may be the mood of the country, lawyers are well aware that all the recent case law is making it more and more clear that the courts are interpreting the present law, which is not altered in this respect by the Bill, in a way which leans heavily towards the wife, as, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman and most hon. Members would expect. There is, therefore, no ripple, as it were, within the courts to encourage the sort of attitudes which the hon. Gentleman fears.
As for the Amendment itself, for the reasons, among others, advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), it would be impossible to accept so rigid a formula as this. It would mean that illegitimate children were excluded, and it would tie the hand of the court. I can hardly imagine that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) would wish to introduce, or urge us to accept, an Amendment which could be so rigid in its effect as to bring severe hardship to a family, and particularly the children, as this undoubtedly would.
The Amendment would put the court in an intolerable position, since it is our desire, as is clear from Clause 6(2), to make certain that the court, applying the


general principles which I have explained, shall consider all the circumstances. I do not doubt that in considering those circumstances, if they are so permitted, the courts will act in such a way that it will be seen that the wife in every instance of which I can think receives the sort of priority which I understand to be in some hon. Members' minds.

Division No. 264.]
AYES
[11.34 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Silvester, Frederick


Alldritt, Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, J. E. B.
Tuck, Raphael


Body, Richard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Waddington, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Ward, Dame Irene


Bullus, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Weatherill, Bernard


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Longden, Gilbert
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Woof, Robert


Delargy, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, Michael



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew, Victor
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mr. Simon Mahon and


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Mr. John Biggs-Davison.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Norwood, Christopher


Albu, Austen
Gregory, Arnold
Nott, John


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Astor, John
Haseldine, Norman
Oram, Albert E.


Awdry, Daniel
Hobden, Dennis
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bell, Ronald
Huckfield, Leslie
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Brown, Hugh D. ((G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Carmichael, Neil
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Chapman, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Silvernman, Julius


Coe, Denis
Lubbock, Eric
Sinclair, Sir George


Concannon, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Crawshaw, Richard
Macdonald, A. H.
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Mackie, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marks, Kenneth
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ellis, John
Marten, Neil
Whitaker, Ben


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ennals, David
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ford, Ben
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Christopher Price and


Forrester, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. William Hamling.


Freeson, Reginald

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected any of the multitude of Amendments to the proposed Third Reading, but this will not limit the debate in any way.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
After a hard day's night it is not my desire to prevent or delay in any way

On this occasion, although I have gladly accepted three Amendments put forward by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, I hope he will not press an Amendment which, I am sure, most hon. Members will regard as bad.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 90.

the House from coming to a final conclusion on the Bill. For many reasons, I would not seek to carry out any such programme of delay.

I believe it essential that Parliament come to a decision on divorce reform and although I was the sponsor of the Bill I sincerely believe that I would have preferred it to be rejected rather than fail through lack of Parliamentary time


or because of procedural devices. It is important that Parliament, for its own reputation, should make the decision, and it is equally important for the people affected by the Bill. For many years we have played with them cat and mouse, raising their hopes one year only to dash them to the ground the next.

Throughout the long Committee and Report stages, some criticism was made of the Bill that it was hastily conceived and badly drafted and I want to take up briefly these two points in a general way. The Bill originated in a Bill introduced in 1951 by my hon. Friend the present Minister of State, Welsh Office, which led to the appointment of the Morton Commission. There followed, in 1963, the Divorce Reform Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). In 1964, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Group published "Putting Asunder". Finally, in 1966, we had the Law Commissioner's Report, "The Field of Choice". This all resulted in the Bill which was introduced in 1967 in almost the same terms as this one by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson).

This is a consensus Bill. It has been framed to carry out, as fairly and effectively as possible, the proposals for divorce reform which emerged from the exchange of views of the Law Commissioners and the Archbishop's Group headed by the Bishop of Exeter.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have listened to all the arguments and points raised. I have taken advice from individuals, members of the legal profession and from the Law Commissioners. I have accepted some Amendments. Some hon. Members I know think that I should have accepted a lot more. But I have been anxious throughout to do nothing to destroy the agreement reached between the Archbishop's Group and the Law Commissioners, since I believe that that agreement is the best basis for a more rational and compassionate divorce law. I accept the sincerity and the integrity of those who have opposed the Bill, or who have opposed certain of its provisions, and I ask them that they accept if not the wisdom of the supporters of the Bill at least our integrity and sincerity likewise.

I want to take this opportunity of paying particular tribute to my hon. Friend

the Member for Pontypool for his work on the Bill and for his work for many years in the cause of divorce reform. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) who has done a great deal of work to facilitate the passage of the Bill.

It would be wrong for us to believe that many of these social reform Measures are brought about only by the actions of politicians, and here I pay tribute to the Divorce Law Reform Union and its representative, Mr. Alistair Service. The Law Commissioners have provided great help and assistance in drafting and correcting and, likewise, I thank them for their support.

All the world loves a wedding, because it embodies the love, hopes and aspirations of us all. No one loves a divorce and certainly I do not, neither for myself nor for anyone else. But I believe that if we are to seek to discourage divorce we cannot do it by law but by ourselves practising and encouraging others to follow a far higher moral approach to all our human relationships. I have resisted the temptation to quote letters because, obviously, most of the people who have written to me have been themselves in a plight because of the break-up of their marriages and wanted the Bill to go through.

But I will break that practice today and finish by quoting from a letter which typifies the feelings of many of the people whom I hope the Bill will serve well. It says:
There are many harsh cases such as mine and we can do so little to help and you so much.
I am 68 years old and in 1936 I left my legal spouse due to the conduct she meted out to me. That was 33 long years ago. She refused to divorce me and after many years of sadness I met a gracious lady in 1945 and in 1949 we came to live here as man and wife.
We have no children. Neither have I any by my legal spouse. We just go on hoping, hoping and hoping that one day before one of us is called home we may be legally married and so complete our loyal love and affection.
Will you help our dream come true? Please, please, please do try.

I believe that this is what the Divorce Reform Bill will do to serve people like this and that it will serve them well.

11.47 a.m.

Sir L. Heald: I am sure that the House will not wish to have a long speech at this stage but I want to put before it the reasons why I feel bound to say that still I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. Before doing so, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on the work he has done throughout the passage of the Bill. He and I have been on opposite sides for a long time in considering the Bill, but we have always had the most pleasant relations and he must feel very happy that he has today received such remarkable support from his own followers. I know he will be very pleased about that, and I must add that those of us who know him know that there is at least one good reason for it—his personality.
I say at once that the reason for my opposition to the Third Reading is that the Bill has emerged at this stage with substantially no amendment and it remains what I have always maintained it to be—unfair and without adequate financial protection to innocent spouses and their children in the application of the new grounds for divorce which it introduces. That has particular relation to paragraph (e), which we discussed again today.
I must deal with what is in the Bill. I will state very briefly what it is about that Clause to which I and many others object. It is, first, the general principle of the unilateral provisions of compulsory divorce. I should like to have seen that Clause drafted on the lines that we discussed today; that is, if I may make a comparison familiar to lawyers, based on the provision in landlord and tenant matters, that consent to the assignment of a lease, for example, should not be unreasonably withheld. If we had to have it I think, and I have always suggested, that that would be a fairer way of doing it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot amend a Clause on Third Reading. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can, however, denounce one.

Sir L. Heald: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Confining myself to what is in the Bill, I say that it provides inadequate financial protection for the "first wife"

and her children, which I think is probably strictly in order. We have discussed this matter again today. I am speaking in the positive, not the negative, sense. What have we got from it? We have what the Solicitor-General told us this morning.
The Bill, as it stands, has been admitted by the Lord Chancellor to give defective financial protection to the first wife. It is said that this will prove in time not to be defective because Government legislation is to be introduced which will give effective protection.
I contend that the Bill should not be given a Third Reading at this time. The House ought to seize and retain control over the Bill until we have had an opportunity of seeing what it really provides. The Bill already notionally is to contain the Lord Chancellor's new provisions, but no one knows what they are. If the Solicitor-General does not know, how are we to know?
If we allow the Bill to go through today, what will be the position of this House? We know that some report is to appear. I should not for a moment detract from the Law Commission. I have no doubt that the report will be admirable. We have been told about the kind of matters that will be in it. I am sure that it will be very well done. But we also know that for the implementation of the Bill it is now clear that a substantial provision of public funds will also be required. The Law Commission will not supply those funds.
We could find ourselves next Session with a Bill, having received the Royal Assent, incapable of further Amendment and the House having no control over it. We shall then receive the report, and, based on that report, we shall receive some draft legislation as a White Paper or in some other form.
Suppose this House decides that the content of that new legislation is unsatisfactory. What a position we shall be in! We shall be powerless to do anything with it. It may be that another Bill would have to be introduced to make the wheels go round. Surely that is wrong.
I will not occupy the time of the House too long, but I should like to give one example which is most important to many of the women we have heard about today. I remind the House of what the


Solicitor-General told us today. He used almost the same language as he did in Committee reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 5th March, 1969, at column 239. I will not read what he said, because he repeated it today. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to three matters: the extension of the court's powers to award secured provision—that is, secured maintenance as it is often called—a lump sum payment, and matters connected with settlements. But he did not mention anything about widows' pensions. That is one of the matters about which people are most concerned because the first wife cannot be a widow for the purposes of the vast majority of pension schemes.
Everyone knows that is one matter which must be dealt with before this large number of new divorces under the Bill are handled. I will not discuss it in any detail. We know that some people say that it will be necessary for there to be two widows' pensions. That will be a fairly tall order. In the foreseeable financial future it sounds an unlikely thing to be expected. I give that as an example.
The House is being asked, in effect, to place upon the Statute Book a Measure of great importance which, as it stands, the Lord Chancellor regards as not proper to be put into operation. I submit most strongly, in those circumstances, that it would be wrong to ask for the Royal Assent for the Bill.
It is not impossible for arrangements to be made to carry over a Bill at a certain stage. I will not discuss that matter now. I mention it to make clear that I am aware that there are ways by which these things can be done. I believe that something of that kind should be done. We should not be doing our duty, particularly after what we heard from the Solicitor-General today, if the House lost control of the Bill before knowing something about the financial and legal additions which will be made to it. It could be utterly wrong for us to let it go.
Therefore, I suggest that, while there may be some machinery for dealing with this matter, none has been suggested, and if none is suggested, the House should reject the Bill at this stage.

12 noon.

Mr. Peter Mahon: One of my hon. Friends said that this was a consensus

Bill. As a democrat, I have no difficulty in recognising consensus opinion. That being so, I know full well that there will be many sad hearts in my constituency today at the passing of this Bill, particularly among the women-folk.
Divorce by compulsion is a denial of marriage itself, and I have no hesitation in suggesting that to the degree that this reform becomes law the institution we call marriage must totter. The Bill is an open-ended attack on marriage, and, therefore, on the family. As divorce becomes easier, it is a natural corollary that marrige becomes weaker.
With the passing of the Bill, this House is proposing for the first time in English law that a defaulter can benefit from wrong-doing. He can walk out on his wife and demand, as in law, some sort of freedom. He can walk out with somebody else's wife and still, with this reform, make his own bid for freedom. This is not freedom. This is licence. This is legislation for marital pandemonium, or, if we prefer it, the law of the jungle.
Marriage was meant to be the pledge of eternal love. With the Bill we are trying to pledge this country to eternal promiscuity, and we are giving it status into the bargain. If the Bill makes its mark, Britain will indubitably be a philanderer's paradise. Some people dislike the truth. I do not. I did not object when a noble Lady in another place referred to the Bill as a "Casanova's charter," and, if we are to accept the Solicitor-General's concept of the situation, a liar's charter to boot.
Divorce has been known as the sacrament of adultery, but with the passing of the Bill those days are over. Now we are legislating for divorce, without shame and without guilt. Divorce is now to be a respectable sacrament. We are living in an era of 50,000 divorces a year, one marriage in five ending in the courts. Mr. Deputy Speaker, with this Bill get ready for the wreck of one marriage in five. With the Bill get ready for the collapse of one marriage in two. With the Bill get ready for the collapse of marriage, and all done in the name of reform.
The period of two years' desertion by the petitioner, provided that the other person does not object, in my opinion is not sufficiently long to constitute grounds


for the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. A single extra-marital act is undoubtedly insufficient proof of the failure of a marriage. Fidelity in marriage implies much more than the abstention from adultery. But in my view, also, two years' separation is even less proof that a a marriage has unquestionably collapsed.
Marriage is often likened to a voyage. There can be long calms and deep peace. There can be squalls and great hardships, tremendous trials, tribulations, and vicissitudes. Let me pursue the comparison. The Bill is an invitation to every sea-dog to jump overboard whenever there is a storm in his marriage, and yet the Christian concept demands that he stay on deck. There are too many deserting the ship. There are too many hacking holes in the side of the ship.
No thinking person can be happy about the state of marriage as it exists in England today. In the realm of marriage divorce is an abuse, a disintegrating and destructive abuse. Divorce has become so common that it is threatening the foundation of marriage and gnawing at the very vitals of family life. Marriage is not only for a man and a woman. That was not the whole idea at all. Marriage is for the children of the family, and the detraction of marriage by divorce, particularly by divorce without the consent of both parties, inflicts on the children all the unhappiness of a broken home.
Easy divorce laws are a disaster for the community. Divorce is not a private matter. Everyone is affected by the general standards. What of the hard cases, as they are called? Those of us who are men and women of the world and feel that we have our feet on the ground say that in human affairs there are inevitably always bound to be hard cases. Nothing human will ever be perfect. Marriages will fail, but easy divorce will not lessen the number. It will increase it.
All divorce begins with selfishness on the part of one or both partners. It cannot be gainsaid that with a modicum of good will and tolerance the most stormy seas can safely be navigated. In one of his dilemmas recently the Home Secretary said, "Steady as she goes; just a touch of the tiller". He said that difficulties separate the men from the boys, and

difficulties certainly cement a marriage and add to the love of any genuine wife for a good husband.
Divorce is undoubtedly synonymous with the disintegration of the family. If the purpose of the Bill—and I was hoping that we would be told that it has a purpose—is to make divorce easier, it represents a major disaster for the human beings involved. It represents a disaster for the institution of marriage. Easy divorce laws for all are a disaster for the children because they mean inevitably, once again, broken homes and divided loyalties.
Marriage is a sacrament, a holy thing. In Christian marriage there are not two parties to the contract; there are three—the husband, the wife and Almighty God. As the banners so often proclaim, God will not be mocked. In support of the Bill it is said that marriages that are ended are often terminated with much bitterness. With the advent of the Bill, will human nature indeed be changed? I think not. Hon. Members are inclined at times to live in a fool's paradise. We are asked to believe that the Bill will reduce the number of irregular and illicit unions. Just how naive are we in the House expected to become in the interests of reform?
One of our supposedly great newspapers, under the heading, "The deceits of divorce", proclaims that the Bill deserves to proceed
despite the feminist hostility aroused by its earlier success.
What it is saying is that the opinions of the women of our country must be trampled upon. The newspaper goes on to say that the critics of the Bill allege that it will erode the institution of marriage. This is a grandiloquent charge to make in defence of a law so obviously unsatisfactory as the present divorce law. The newspaper adds:
Naturally, a new law on the lines proposed would produce a spate of divorces by people trapped in marriage while living stably with another person.
Now we have this Bill, presented to us in all its stark staring reality. It is for the people trapped into illicit living, while those endeavouring to face up to the sacrament of matrimony as an indissoluble union can be left to live alone, with or without the children of the marriage, because one partner desires a


change. It need not be adultery; the Bill does not mention it. Do not mention it, for that only creates bitterness; we are most anxious that whatever happens, everyone must remain very good friends.
Speak about equal rights, about equal pay, about equality in all spheres of human and natural relationships. The women of the country will detest the Bill and recoil in horror at its implications. It is admitted that there will be a spate of divorces. There will be a spate of broken homes, a spate of broken hearts and a never-to-be-forgotten life of loneliness, disruption and unhappiness for endless numbers of children.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I wish to make only a very short speech but, as one of the sponsors of the Bill, I should like to add a few words of my own.
I am sure that it is right that time was given last night for the discussion of the Bill, in spite of everything that was said by some of my hon. Friends in the debate. If procedural difficulties had killed the Bill I think the reputation of Parliament would have suffered yet another major setback. I believe the Bill will remove from the divorce law a great deal of the hypocrisy which surrounds it today and from the divorce courts a great deal of the distress, humiliation and bitterness which surround them today. I speak with some feeling here, as one who has practised a certain amount in a minor way in the divorce courts.
I am profoundly convinced that whatever our critics may say—and they have said it many times in the last few hours—the Bill will strengthen the institution of marriage and not weaken it. It is in that spirit that I wholeheartedly support the Bill.

12.16 p.m.

Dr. Gray: While congratulating the sponsors of the Bill on having brought it forward, I should make it clear that once again in 10 years' time the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will be bringing forward yet another.
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said that the Bill has gone through virtually un-amended, either in his direction or in mine. It is true that the Bill introduces

the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the basic reason for divorce, and surely this should be welcomed, but at the same time it retains the doctrine of the matrimonial offence, despite its two principal innovations; namely, divorce by consent in a civilised way after two years and divorce after five years against the wish of one party.
Although one has to recognise that this last provision will be a source of grievance and suffering for many, one should also recognise that it will be a cause of great rejoicing to thousands more in this country who have lived in stable relationships for many years and the 180,000 illegitimate children in this country who will become legitimate. These people will be brought formally within society, and surely this is a good thing.
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey drew attention to the question of financial provision. I hope the Lord Chancellor will listen to the cry of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), because I think something must be done, for example, in relation to the Married Women's Property Act, and the whole of social and financial supporting legislation should be improved. At the same time, one should recognise that there will not be insufficient provision for dependants of the rich only the poor. This too, it seems to me, is something to regret about this Bill. I hope that, just as the Abortion Act was improved in another place, so this Bill also will be improved. It also seems to me that as we are going to have divorce by consent after two years, it should no longer be necessary for adults to undergo suffering by appearing personally before the courts. They should be able to enter affidavits and not be called.
Once again I felicitate with all my heart the sponsors of this Bill. It is a step foward to an extremely modest reform, but certainly it is in the direction that many of us wish—indeed the majority—as has been shown by the voting during the passage of the Bill.

12.19 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: On Second Reading I said that I regarded this as a disgraceful Bill which I would fight at every stage. I have fought it at every stage, and I still regard it as a disgraceful


Bill. It will bring very little happiness. I am sure—I am sorry to be so sure—that it will bring a great deal of misery.
People generally do not realise what the Bill will do. It introduces unilateral divorce, which is the facet which has had perhaps the greatest publicity, but it also abolishes the doctrine of connivance. To take an extreme example, from the day it becomes law—if it does—a husband will be able to encourage his wife to commit adultery, send her out on the streets as a prostitute and live on her immoral earnings. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am giving an extreme case. If he did that and then decided that it was intolerable to live with her, not because of her adultery but for almost any reason, he would be entitled to a divorce which the courts could not refuse. If anyone disputes that, let him dispute it now.

Mr. Alec Jones: The picture which the hon. and learned Gentleman has painted can hardly be described as that of a true and viable marriage, which is working under any circumstances.

Mr. Campbell: I am interested in that response, because it amounts to an acceptance of the accuracy of what I said. A man could be separated from his wife through no fault of either—perhaps one has been in hospital with tuberculosis or the man is working abroad while his wife and children are still in England. If the separation is long enough, one of them can say "I want a divorce" and will be entitled to it. I wonder whether people understand that this is one of the things which the new Bill does—

Mr. Awdry: To come back to my hon. and learned Friend's earlier example—a rather disgraceful case which he also raised in Committee—does he suggest that a man who asked his wife to go out on the streets as a prostitute would have a live marriage? Does he not agree that that marriage must have broken down?

Mr. Campbell: I am interested to hear another hon. Member raising the same question and therefore accepting the accuracy of what I said. I suppose it may be a poor sort of marriage, but is that the point?

Mr. Awdry: Of course.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that many hon. Members are very unhappy about the Bill and have not supported it, but that, on the basis of statements like that, we shall soon be voting for it? I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.

Mr. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Member would be more interested in just looking at the cold financial facts. Consider what will happen to the wife who is deserted and divorced. The only object of a divorce is to remarry: one can always leave one's wife. What will the first wife lose? She will lose her status as wife, and the right to live in the matrimonial home, to which the husband will probably bring his new wife. She will lose her rights to a share in her husband's pension, and whatever income the husband has must be shared with his new wife. It is almost impossible, if one is not a millionaire. Very few husbands can do this; so many of these wives will be thrown on National Assistance.

Dame Joan Vickers: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that the figures show that 64 per cent. of the women remarry?

Mr. Campbell: I do not know to what figures my hon. Friend refers. I should have thought that remarriage would not be likely for many wives concerned in a compulsory divorce. It must depend largely on their age.
What can the Lord Chancellor's proposed legislation do? It is all very well to promise legislation dealing with matrimonial property; but what legislation? It is easy to deal with rich people and tell those men to provide for their divorced wives generously. But the county is not full of rich men. It is full of poor men, of middle-class and working people whose budgets simply do not allow for proper provision for two families. What does the ordinary man own? If he is lucky, he owns his home, probably heavily mortgaged, and that, with the furniture, is his only asset.
What can legislation do to provide the wife he divorces with anything? She may get a small slice of the equity in a home, perhaps a few hundred pounds at the most. It is simply impossible to provide adequately for these women by


legislation, and unless the Government decide that they will allow one man to have more than one widow—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We cannot pursue this line of argument too far on Third Reading.

Mr. Campbell: I will pursue it no further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think I am entitled to criticise the Bill generally. I criticise it on the ground that it is impossible for the women respondents, especially, to be adequately protected financially. They must suffer.
The cost to the Legal Aid Fund of extra divorce cases as a result of this legislation has been estimated by the Law Commission at between £300,000 and £400,000 a year. But that is only a drop in the ocean when one considers that so many thousands more people will be thrown on to social security because the husband will not be able to support two households. The amount involved must be enormous, and must come from the Exchequer, at a time when we are in grave economic difficulty.
I cannot welcome the Bill, but I should not like to sit down without congratulating the sponsor and his helpers, particularly his unofficial whip, who I thought did a magnificent job, especially throughout the watches of last night.

12.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I feel very glad that the prospect is that the House will come to a decision upon his Bill.
In passing, perhaps I might quote from a speech delivered in the course of the Second Reading on divorce reform in the Session before last by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in which he said:
As the Solicitor-General thought, it is desirable that each of the Front Benches should make a modest contribution to the debate, if only to say, as he said from his side and as I say from mine, that by the nature of the matter this is not a party issue of any sort. The Government and Opposition are neutral, not in the sense that we want our members to take no part in these discussions, but … in the sense that it is important that the group as such should occasionally desire to play no part as a group."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 877.]
I agree with every word of that, for it deals with a theme which has given rise to a lot of discussion since. The Gov-

ernment's attitude in this matter is really no more than an application of the point of view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Listening to these debates and to the proceedings in Committee, both this Session and the previous Session, I have formed the impression that two points of view widely co-exist. First, I have found a general and widespread disposition to welcome the application of the principle of irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce. It gets away from a good number of artificialities and difficulties that nearly everyone is glad to see go. So that that concept contained in the Bill receives a wide welcome.
By the same token, as a matter of narrative I must say that I have found a great deal of natural and fairly expressed anxiety about the five-year living apart provision. There is anxiety about it, but I feel that the point which it is very important to remember is that, if the principle or concept of irretrievable breakdown is applied to these matters, of all the situations set out in the Bill the case of spouses living apart for as long as five years is prima facie the clearest evidence of that concept of breakdown taking effect. I put that forward as a reflection which other hon. Members may care to pursue.
During the course of this morning's discussions, and at earlier stages, I have attempted to give such assistance as I can about the intentions with regard to the financial provisions. Again considering the case of spouses living apart for five years, I would invite hon. Members to bear in mind that in most instances the financial difficulties which naturally and properly concern hon. Members will have accrued and developed during those five years. A good deal of the criticism about the insufficiency of financial provision is really as correctly directed against the existing state of affairs as it is to the recommendations and proposals contained in the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said in terms that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had by his proposals and observations admitted that the financial safeguards in the Bill were inadequate. That is not so. My noble Friend has often emphasised that, where a respondent is


adversely affected by the Bill, the court is given ample powers to give financial protection.
The powers given to the courts in respect of pensions are more extensive than perhaps is generally appreciated, and I acknowledge the problem created by the consideration of the pensions point. It is one of the facts of life that divorce alters the status inter se of spouses and, to the extent that pension rights depend on that status, divorce must affect them. Therefore, any petition for divorce must put a widow's pension at risk. However, the Bill enables the court to say to the petitioning husband, "You must do what you can about pension rights before the marriage is dissolved."
Then it is said repeatedly and with force that there should be much more compendious treatment of the financial provisions at the same time as, and interwoven with, proposals for changes in the law on divorce and judicial separation. I acknowledge that some of those arguments have been forceful, but I invite the House to consider that one advantage which counter-weighs that is the fact that financial provision may be best if it comes after and takes account of changes and adjustments in the substantative law. The financial provision is ancillary and, until the substantive law is known, it cannot be formulated so as to provide the best solution.
I agree that a major change in the substantive law ought to be followed by necessary and consequential changes in ancillary provisions, and the need to reduce to a minimum any interval between the two requires no justification. It is that kind of factor which has weighed in the mind of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and it explains the attitude that he has taken on the matter.

12.40 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Solicitor-General for his speech. The House has a right to expect Front Bench spokesmen to give what help they can in matters of this kind, and to expect them, whatever their personal feelings in the matter, to detach themselves as far as they can from those personal feelings, and to put before the House as calmly as possible the technical legislative problems with which it is confronted.
I must apologise to the House for having absented myself after half-past five this morning. I confess that, although the spirit was willing, the flesh became progressively weaker, and the Front Bench on this side would not have been garnished at all had it not been for the devoted service of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) whose services I hope the House has noted with gratitude.
As I have said, and the Solicitor-General was kind enough to recall my remarks on a previous occasion when I spoke on the general merits of the Bill, I do not claim to find it easy to detach myself, partly because of my own personal history and partly because of my professional experience. It never has occurred to me to think that this is a disgraceful Bill. It is a Bill which has been very widely backed by a very considerable section of public opinion, and, quite apart from the section of public opinion in point of size, it is supported, and has been supported, by very highly qualified persons both in the field of morality and in the field of legislation. I therefore do not think it fair to describe it, even if one has reserves about it, as a disgraceful Bill.
I noticed at an earlier stage of our proceedings during the night that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) accused me of levity. I hope that on reflection he will feel that that was an unjust charge. I tried, it is true, to be amusing about a technical Amendment with which I was wholly in disagreement because I thought its technical implications were quite unacceptable, but I hope that the hon. Member, and his brother, the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) will accept that I approach the Bill, as they do, from a specifically Christian standpoint. But I would say this to them about the terms of the Bill.
Whether or not marriage be a sacrament is a matter for the theologians. We are not today legislating about the sacrament, if it be one. We are legislating about the legal status. This Bill concerns itself only with the legal status, and the legal status is the same whether the marriage is between Jews, or atheists, or between divorced persons, or between persons one of whom has been divorced. In none of those cases does any


theologian pretend that the union is a sacrament. We are dealing with the legal status, the theological nature of which must differ between one couple and another, and it is unrealistic to suppose that a community like ours—

Mr. Peter Mahon: We are not today dealing specifically with marriage. We are dealing rather more with divorce and the abuses of divorce and the effect of divorce on the family, rather than with the situation with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so eloquently outlined.

Mr. Hogg: We are dealing with the nature of the status, and the various characteristics which, in future, that status will have; and primarily, of course, with the dissolution of that status, and its legal consequences. This has been true of almost every matrimonial Measure since 1857, except those Acts which have dealt with property alone. Therefore, those who take the sacramental view of marriage—which, from one point of view, I myself do, without subscribing to the theology which is implied in the word—have to recognise that this does not assist the discussion on the merits of the Bill.
With regard to the consequences of the Bill, I have said previously that I have reserves about its value but, speaking for myself, there are only ten words which I find wholly unacceptable. They are the words at the end of Clause 6(2)(b):
the best that can be made in the circumstances.
I recognise that the introduction of unilateral divorce is something which arouses considerable apprehension and some feeling. Up to a point, I sympathise with both the apprehension and the feeling, but, on balance, and I must say to the House that I think that there comes a time—whether it should be five years, as the Bill provides, or some other period of time longer or shorter is a matter of degree—when the Legislature is probably wise to put a line under such a marriage which has failed, and say that it has failed and that the situation must be, as we would say in company law, wound up. That is what the Bill does in that respect.
That is not so, of course, if unilateral divorce is to be a feature of our matri-

monial law, and that is what the House is in process of deciding and what Parliament will ultimately decide. If it is, the established rights of what I still must regard matrimonially as the innocent party—and as, I think, the hon. Member for Bootle said, there are a great number of innocent parties in broken-down marriages, and I speak now from professional experience—must be adequately safeguarded.
I say this deliberately to the sponsors of the Bill because I hope that when the Bill passes through the other House of Parliament they will have second thoughts about the second part of this set of words. The first part says that a decree is not to be given unless the financial provision for the innocent respondent in the case is "reasonable and fair". That seems to me to be just, and it says that it is just because it invokes the principle of justice for the respondent in the case of unilateral divorce. But when we add the words
… or the best that can be made in the circumstances
it seems to me that we are inviting Parliament to abandon the principle of justice, to abandon what is reasonable and fair, and I must say in the clearest and most unequivocal of terms that I could never vote for a Bill containing those words even though the whole of the rest of the Bill were acceptable.
I cannot help feeling that much of the discussion on Report and much of the discussion so far in this Third Reading debate has failed to concentrate on what seems to me to be the principal demerit of what is now proposed.

Mr. Abse: The right hon. and learned Gentleman unfortunately missed our debate on these words, but I would ask him how he would prevent a Bill like this becoming a piece of class legislation except by having a provision which, when the court deems it wise, enables poor people, who have no means, to end marriages which have clearly broken down?

Mr. Hogg: I apologise again for my absence after half-past five this morning. It was precisely that point that I had in mind when I was complaining that there had been too much discussion of points that do not really matter and too little discussion of the two or three points


which really do matter. I think that a great deal of largely irrelevant and prejudicial material has been introduced, and it had the effect in my case, and I suspect that I am not alone in this, of preventing me from attending the particular debate in which I was most interested, and I apologise for it.
In answer to the precise question put to me, I do not think that the issue of class enters into it at all. If we keep the words "reasonable and fair" and abandon the words
the best that can be made in the circumstances
it seems to me that we shall make adequate provision for all classes. It seems to me that we are doing nobody any good by inserting into the Bill, for the benefit of those who are not quite so wealthy as others, a provision which deliberately abandons justice and does so unequivocally. Applying my mind as honestly as I can to the technical requirements of legislation, I feel it my duty to beg the promoters of the Bill to look at that issue again.
There is one other general principle to which I think Parliament should pay attention. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) put it in a slightly passionate form which I think obscured the real difficulty in the matter. If we are accepting, as the Bill does accept, irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground of divorce—which is a principle very widely accepted, not only by the sponsors of the Bill but, I find, in professional circles generally—then, if we stop there, we are abandoning a safeguard for the institution of marriage which has hitherto existed. Whether we are right or wrong to do so, that fact must be faced.
Let me explain the present law when, quite irrespectve of the demonstration of matrimonial offence, both parties thoroughly despise the institution of marriage so as to show by their conduct that they hold it in contempt. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West spoke of a unilateral example; they are not quite so rare as hon. Members may think, and I have known many bilateral examples in which both parties have played fast and loose with the institu- 
tion of marriage. The law at the moment is that they forfeit their right, even if their marriage breaks down, and irrespective of matrimonial offence, to have their marriage wound up by the courts. I hope that not only the hon. Member for Bootle but also other hon. Members will acquit me of levity if I draw a rather absurd analogy and say that the behaviour of both parties in the past is such that, as it were, under the existing law they have their licence endorsed and perhaps even taken away. In other words, it is said that their behaviour brings marriage into contempt and they are not free to undertake it again.
We are abolishing that safeguard for the institution of marriage, and I have considerable reservations whether that is wise. I do not think that that by itself would lead me to condemn the Bill, but it is an issue which requires a little further consideration when the Bill is sent from this place to another place.
I have one further comment to add, in the spirit, I hope, in which I have approached the matter throughout. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), I make no complaint of the Government for giving time for the Bill. It seemed to me quite inevitable, the feeling of the House being what it was, that the Government should seek to give effect to it by giving time. We have been through a critical Motion on the subject, and I shall not revive the passions which it aroused.
But I say to the Solicitor-General, as the representative of the Government, that I should have been far happier about the debate if he had curtailed one of our recesses for two days than I feel now that the debate has been held right through the middle of the night. On whichever side one comes down in any of the disputed issues—and I am in some ways impartial, not only in speaking from the Box but in fact, for there is a great deal to be said on both sides on many of the issues—I do not believe that the public quite understand why we are legislating about an institution such as marriage, which is one of the more permanent features of our social life, by ordeal by marathon. I do not think that is a desirable way to proceed, and I hope the Solicitor-General will convey that thought to the Leader of the House, because I am sure that there will


be other occasions on which the Government wish to give time to important social questions on which they do not wish openly to take sides.
I have one other point to make, and I make it, again, from the point of view of law and legislation rather than of conviction about the issue. We have to face the fact that we cannot afford constantly to be fiddling about with the law. If we want the law to be respected, it must have a certain durability. I am not suggesting that it should be permanent or unalterable, but if the idea is that we have only to find something slightly wrong with legislation to say that we can alter it fundamentally, the respect for the law in this country will diminish—and it is diminishing to an alarming extent. Whatever the outcome of the Bill, I hope that we shall not have too many more matrimonial Bills, either from the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) whose Parliamentary skill is enormous, or from anybody else, altering too frequently the fundamental nature of our matrimonial institutions.

12.56 p.m.

Mr. Delargy: I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill on the sole and simple ground that it is unsatisfactory. That is the only ground on which I have any right to vote against it.
Some people seem to think that only a religious fanatic can object to the proposals of the Bill. That is untrue and it is unjust. When an Amendment was moved in the early hours of the morning seeking to deny civil divorce to persons who had celebrated their marriage according to certain religious tenets, I spoke against it, and had it been put to a Division, which it was not, I should have voted against it.
One cannot enforce religious belief or practice by legal sanctions. Divorce law in a pluralist, secular society is necessary. But such law must provide genuine relief and should protect family life and the children. It must reinforce the sense of personal responsibility and also protect society from unwarranted burdens. To achieve all this, the law should strengthen marriage as a social institution. It should provide safeguards in matrimonial property and maintenance, and it should offer guidance for decent behaviour. I do not think that the Bill

does that. It bristles with inadequacies and inconsistencies. We have been discussing some of them for the last 12 hours. Indeed, it is just 12 hours since I started to talk on the subject.
There is no need to repeat all the inconsistencies now. If I tried to do so, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order. But I believe that my hon. Friends—and they are indeed my hon. Friends—the sponsors of the Bill are not themselves wholly satisfied with it. I do not know why it was thrust upon us before it was put into a proper state. Whether it can still be improved, I do not know. I hope that it will be improved. But in its present state I shall vote against it.

12.58 p.m.

Sir T. Beamish: I shall have no hesitation, either, in voting against the Third Reading. I abstained on Second Reading because I felt that many good features of the Bill were outweighed by one really bad feature which is contained in Clause 2(1)(e). I was also slightly critical of the total lack of information at the time—the situation is not much better now—about adequate maintenance for divorced women and children. There is no improvement worth speaking of in either respect now that we have reached Third Reading.
My first main objection arises, as does the objection of many other hon. Members, out of Clause 2(1)(e). The Bill makes it clear that irretrievable breakdown should be the only ground for dissolving a marriage. However, it does not follow that in practically every case of irretrievable breakdown the marriage should automatically be dissolved, although that is the effect of the subsection.
The Bill also reflects the great anxiety that most of us have to remove the elements of guilt and innocence which sometimes bedevil our present divorce system, but not as much as is sometimes pretended. The Bill seems to swing much too far the other way. A man or woman would be able, as a result of the Bill, to extricate himself or herself from a solemn contract of which he or she was a willing party by committing an offence—by unilaterally breaking that contract—to enable him or her to gain the support of the law in having it annulled. The matter is as straightforward as that, and I do not like it one bit. It is bound


to have the effect of unnecessarily increasing the number of broken homes.
At the same time, the subsection would enable couples so disposed to enter marriage on the basis of what I would call a "trial run". It would remove the bar to the unscrupulous and a defence from the innocent and gullible—perhaps not in a large number of cases, but certainly in some. These features are, it must be agreed, thoroughly bad in principle, whether applied to marriage or to any other binding promise given in good faith.
This proposal will also in many cases be harsh and unjust in its application. If a man or woman kept his or her side of the bargain and tried to make a success of the marriage, he or she surely has a moral right to object to the marriage being automatically dissolved. In my view, to deny such a right is seriously to risk eroding the whole idea of marriage.
In the case of a woman, she would suffer the loss of her married status and the undoubted loss of her financial and other rights, including, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions, her pension rights. Hon. Members have particularly had in mind pensions from Commonwealth Governments because a widow can in many circumstances lose her rights absolutely. She would suffer, too, all the misery that is part and parcel of being a deserted wife and, of course, in many cases the children would stand to suffer as well. It is a pity that new Clause 9 was not added to the Bill, as it would largely have corrected what I consider to be some serious defect in it, although I will not pursue this matter now.
My next main objection to the Measure has been expressed by many hon. Members who will be voting against its Third Reading. It is that the Bill will not be operative at the time when it should operate; that is, after receiving the Royal Assent. We do not know what provision will be made for financial support, although we gather that there is to be another Measure. We do not know for certain when it will be introduced, precisely on what principles it will be based, or even whether it will be a Government Bill. If this information has been given,

I am not aware of it. This all seems to suggest that we are in a ridiculous state of affairs.
We should have discussed together the grounds for divorce and the maintenance of women and children. These subjects should, to use the words of the Solicitor-General, have been interwoven. I regret that this has not been the case, and this is a serious criticism of the Bill.
I emphasise what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said about the way in which the Government have handled the Bill. We have had a fantastically long sitting. For 22½ hours we have been sitting continuously. This tends to bring Parliament into disrepute. Everybody knows that no hon. Member is capable of doing his best work in circumstances of this kind. Anybody who has been awake all night must be thoroughly tired. In any event, we have had much tiring work to do before tonight, earlier in the week.
Only about one quarter of the House has, as a result of Thursday night being devoted to this subject, voted during the Report stage. In other words, only one quarter of Parliament has taken part in discussing this extremely important social Measure, which must have far-reaching consequences. This is a deplorable state of affairs, as a result of which we may not have reached the right results. Many hon. Members have, for understandable reasons, been unable to cancel constituency engagements. We have not had a proper cross-section of Parliamentary opinion devoted to this matter as a result of the Government's handling of the Bill, and I regard this as scandalous.
Coupled with this, the Government have given priority to the Bill without accepting responsibility for it. There must be something wrong about that. There has been a good deal of backstage support—[Interruption.]—and I judge, from my observations during the night, when the organisation was very good, that the Government machine was not wholly inactive behind the scenes. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] If that is rubbish, I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Alec Jones: I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Government machine was not active at all during the night. Those of my hon.


Friends who have supported me in the Measure have spent a great deal of time, not as members of the Government but as ordinary back benchers, gathering support for the Bill. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is paying tribute to the efficiency of the machine, I assure him that his tribute is to my hon. Friends who have acted in that capacity and not to the Government machine as such.

Sir T. Beamish: I accept, of course, what the hon. Gentleman says.
To put it in a different way—I do not think that this statement will be challenged—the Government's position of neutrality in this has been a sham. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance and as I have no evidence to support the remark I made just prior to his intervention, I willingly withdraw it. It would have been better if a Measure of this immense importance had been a Government Bill. This view may not be widely shared, but I do not see why it should not have been a Government Measure.
I will not comment on a number of other questions which are still causing me much anxiety. I would have liked to have had more information, and some good guesses based on the best knowledge that is available, about the likely rise in the divorce rate as a result of the Bill. I would have liked to have been told more about the overcrowding in the courts that will certainty result, and I would have liked to have been told a lot more about the cost to the taxpayer of the supplementary benefits which will have to be paid because of the larger number of broken marriages that will result from the Measure. These matters have not been adequately debated, despite the enormous amount of time that has been devoted to the Bill and the care given to it by the sponsors.
I am not happy about so much of the Bill that I will certainly vote against its Third Reading. I hope, meanwhile, that it will be improved before it reaches the Statute Book and that another place will regard it as its duty to scrutinise the Bill carefully. Because of the major blemish to which I referred and because of what I regard as its extremely bad timing, I will oppose the Bill's Third Reading.

1.9 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Throughout our discussion of the Bill I have not been greedy in occupying the time of the House. I wish, briefly, to congratulate the sponsor on having conducted the Measure through such a long and difficult period of gestation. I am sure that hon. Members will, whether they agree or disagree with the Bill's contents, acknowledge his patience and good humour throughout these difficult deliberations.
I am glad about today, for it is in some ways a small turning point in Britain's social history. I am sure that the women of the future will rejoice at what the House of Commons has done today. I say advisedly the women of the future because one effect of the Bill is surely an endeavour to raise the status of both parties to a marriage. It is part of the whole attitude of our demand for higher status for equal pay and greater opportunities in the fields of professional and working life. We cannot go on demanding to be treated as the financial appendages of unloving husbands while, at the same time, we are demanding university places, higher pay and all the privileges that go with it.
I see the Bill as part of that pattern, but, of course, I am aware, as every hon. Member is aware, of the point of view of the older women who are left alone and who have been brought up in an old tradition of dependence, of those to whom the breakdown of marriage is always a most difficult and traumatic experience. I am absolutely in agreement with those who say that pari passu with this Measure there must be further measures in social security, further consideration given to the insurance status of married women—which is being thought of by the Government—and more help given to women whose marriages collapse, not because they are guilty or innocent but because they are wives and mothers with family and domestic responsibilities.
These responsibilities are, of course, widely shared. I must not trespass the rules of order to elaborate that further. I am convinced that in spite of the difficulties which many women, and many men, have to face when their marriages


collapse, such difficulties can arise equally from desertion, separation or widowhood. The last figures from the old National Assistance Board showed that the Board was helping 58,000 deserted mothers with children, whereas it was helping only 14,000 divorced women with children. It is at the point of breakdown and separation that financial hardship comes.
To suggest that it will come after only five years of separate living because of a Clause in this Bill, is economic unreality. The woman who has been deserted and left on her own for five years will either have had a court order which is being paid, or she will be getting social security money on her own. It may be if the matter were regularised under the new Bill that the court would see that better provision was made where possible for many of these people. At the heart of this financial problem we have to look at it in the context of the present social problem of the fatherless family and domestic and family responsibilities.
I am glad that we are getting away from the hypocrisy of the guilty or innocent party. This has always been a most artificial polarisation. We cannot indicate guilt on one side and innocence on the other when we are dealing with the strongest forms of human emotions, thought and relationships. We none of us know what are the strains and tensions which produce certain marital situations.
Although I realise that much of the criticism of this Bill is concerned with the economics of marriage—and I strongly support the Bill as it is—it is perfectly right to look elsewhere for these things to be done. I say that because the legislation which I want to see which will have to do with the status of women, not just married women, cannot be put into the context of a divorce Bill. I want the property of the woman who stays married, either happily or unhappily, to be protected. There is a great deal we need to do to settle the question of widows' property rights.
Many hon. Members have spoken of the loss of the status of marriage for a woman as if it were a serious disadvantage. I have had many bitter letters from women asking me to tell them what is so marvellous about the status of

marriage when their lazy, good-for-nothing husbands can put on their income tax returns the earnings of their wives and the wife's earnings are deemed under our law to be those of her husband. Therefore, it is possible to question the inevitability of the splendour of this status.
What we must seek is more common justice for men and women over the widest possible field and within the centre of the family there is special responsibility. I assure hon. Members who disagree with me that I shall strongly support the other Measures which I think should inevitably follow the Bill, but the Bill is a beginning and I am glad that it is to be passed today.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Emery: Nobody, I think, whatever his views about the Bill, can claim that it is perfect. I have sat here for 15½ hours and this is the first time I have risen to speak on the Bill. I do so because I think there are a number of facts which need to be made absolutely clear by some of those who will be supporting the Bill, particularly after some of the allegations which have been made by some of the Bill's opponents.
It must be made clear that the supporters of the Bill have examined their consciences just as deeply, just as fully, and just as completely as those who may be opposing it. It has been discouraging to me to hear, perhaps only by innuendo, suggestions—which are entirely wrong—that we who may be supporting the Bill wish to damage or undermine the institution of marriage. That certainly is not my wish, and I believe that in no way is it the wish of those who have brought the Bill forward.
I begin in my support for the Third Reading with what has been my basic approach in my thinking on the Bill. It is that the present divorce law is a much worse mess than anything that is in the Bill and that has been associated with legal deceit of the worst kind that could be associated with the law. Therefore it seems to be a realistic, logical and commonsense advance that we can begin accepting for the first time in this country that the breakdown of a marriage should be established as the reason for a divorce.
It is necessary to repeat time and again that the concept that in divorce


there is only one guilty person is just not the case. I do not believe there is one case in 5,000 where blame can be placed on only one spouse. Therefore, there is the sharing of the problem of the breakdown. This should be analysed, and proof of absolute breakdown should be a reason for final divorce. That seems a major step forward which today even the Church is willing to accept.
However, quite clearly many problems still exist, and it is vital that the proposers and supporters of the Bill should be the first to admit this. The problems of married women's property and of finance and State pensions are very great.
I am sorry to say that I do not believe the Government come out of this with much credit. If they had taken the lead in trying to deal with these problems earlier, that would have made the whole position and the passage of this Bill much more logical and sensible. Hon Members should not, when voting for the Third Reading, be asked to take the Government's assurances rather as a pig in a poke. We have no understanding of how these will tie in with the Bill. There will be severe criticism of the Government for their handling of the matter. Obviously, this will not be the last occasion on which social legislation of this type will emerge. Many problems would be avoided if in future the Government were to sponsor such Bills and have the Whips off. Much of the extra work that has been placed on backbenchers throughout the passage of the Bill would have been avoided if that had happened. With social reforms of this magnitude, the whole Government machinery should be available to ensure that it is as good as possible.
I wish to discuss shortly three major issues which have been dealt with in the Bill. First, there is some misunderstanding amongst certain women's organisations about the ability of a deserted wife to present her case to the court. There is concern that her position will not be tenable. Clause 2(2) provides that on a petition for divorce both petitioner and respondent may place facts before the court and that it shall be the duty of the court to inquire into these. It is important that this should be widely known.
I am not happy about the absolute provision for the protection of the person with the strongest religious views who believes that divorce is wrong. However, because I realised the background, I supported the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). I believe that the sponsors are sincere in wanting to ensure as much protection as possible, but the problem still exists.
It has been suggested that the provisions in the Bill are terrifyingly inadequate to ensure a fair financial settlement for a deserted wife. As the Bill will do away with much fear of and resentment at divorce, I believe that many deserted wives will, by using the provisions of the Bill, be able to obtain better financial provision than they have at the moment, better than living apart and having maintenance sent to them by their husbands who have deserted them. The financial provisions in the Bill may well provide the greatest safeguard for such persons.
Although the Bill is not perfect, it is much better than the present law. It is a balance of legal wisdom and common sense, and contains many safeguards designed to alleviate the hardship that exists in our present structure on divorce. Although I have doubts, I intend to vote for the Bill. I think that within 10 years the Bill will be accepted as reasonable, sensible, and even constructive.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I know two good reasons why I should not make a speech on Third Reading. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen might know more. First, I have had plenty of opportunities, through the graciousness of the Chair, to address the House during the night. Secondly, I feel very fatigued.
I am sorry that during the brief moments whilst I was saying that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) left the Chamber. I should like the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) to convey to the right hon. and learned Gentleman my unreserved apologies for having accused him of levity. On reflection, I realise that I was wrong to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last person that I would accuse of any base action or thought. There


is no hon. Member opposite for whom I have a higher regard.
In the course of his advice to the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that people like myself should not expect too much from the point of view of theological standards, that they were almost impossible to apply in the legal sense. We agree with that. I do not want to impose on anybody else my beliefs or any standards I might have inherited purely by accident, but I am prepared to defend those standards. We must start to take notice when important people say, with a glibness that is almost unbelievable in front of millions of people on B.B.C. television, that they cannot afford the luxury of God.
Although people like myself do not wish to impose on anybody else anything that we believe in, we assure them that if they start to attack our standards—there are many societies which make a positive stand against us—they can expect nothing but steadfastness and resolution from us. I name the Humanist Society and other societies.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Secular societies.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Yes, secular societies of all kinds which are springing up. At one time such societies were not anti-us; they were indifferent to people like ourselves. Today they are completely against us and anything that we try to do.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: In the interests of historical accuracy, may I point out to my hon. Friend a fact of which he is probably not aware. Although the British Humanist Association is a new organisation, the National Secular Society has a long tradition and history dating back to the middle of the 19th century.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I remind both hon. Members that we are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Mahon: I shall not pursue it further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall take up little more of the time of the House.
I am concerned about a new doctrine which was introduced into our earlier debate but has not yet been the subject of

comment on Third Reading. No less a person than my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said to us, and to the country, that there was a new doctrine that lies were permissible, that lies themselves—this was it—were a proof of the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage. Since it came from that source, in a speech at the Dispatch Box, the country must take that statement with the seriousness that it deserves.
Even in a world that has lost a lot of its vision, there must be some standards of truth, of honesty and of integrity. I could hardly believe that it could be said from the Government Front Bench that theories or behaviour of that kind are to be accepted in our law courts, and that lies will be accepted as evidence for divorce.
I do not like falling out with the Government. I am part of the movement which made the Government. But, now and again, a man must stand on what he believes to be right. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has returned to the Chamber now. He will not hear anything refreshing or new from me, and I am always sorry that he is my colleague in Liverpool when I have anything nasty to say. However, in spite of his reassurance that the Government's position was one of neutrality, I just do not believe it, and I shall need a lot more assuring before I do. I do not expect my hon. and learned Friend to reassure me now, but I can only say that I do not accept it. I have been listening to arguments and business going forward in the House for many years now. I am not one to make a statement lightly. I believe that I have the best of truth in that matter.
That is all I have to say, save that it would be churlish not to add a word to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), for whom I did some little bits of work on one side of the argument or the other. He is very capable and businesslike in pursuit of his Parliamentary duties. Also, in spite of my conviction that this is a bad Bill, I add a word to two others of my hon. Friends, first, the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), for the manner in which he conducted himself throughout all our proceedings on the Bill, and second, my hon. Friend the


Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), whom all hon. Members are very pleased to see after his recovery from his illness.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: With one at least of the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) I agree. Very few people in this country, and perhaps not many in the House, fully understand what the Bill will do to our law. I shall not vote against the Bill on Third Reading because it is, as it has been described, a "Casanova's charter". Casanovas do not need charters, for one thing. In any case, Parliament is not the keeper of the nation's conscience. But Parliament is the maker of the national's laws, and the Bill would make a revolutionary change in our law because it would make lawful for the first time divorce by mutual consent.
I must refer to the Government's behaviour on the Bill. It is monstrous that this revolutionary change in the law should have to be debated through the whole of one night. They talk of their neutrality. The mask of neutrality which the Government have chosen to wear is painfully transparent. One of the unfortunate results of their behaviour is that a great many hon. Members have not been able to take part or to record their votes. It is not their fault. They are unavoidably absent. The whole thing is made a mockery. It is no good complimenting the Government on making it possible for us to dispose of the Bill throughout the night, in view of the procedural difficulties. The procedural difficulties could have been eliminated if the Government had had the courage either to support or to oppose the Measure.
Those who say that we already have divorce by consent are, wittingly or not, deceiving us, because, although we know that it oftens happens that way, it is not lawful. If connivance or collusion between the parties can be proved, they cannot obtain a decree of divorce. But the Bill would make it lawful, for the first time in our history, for a couple to part and, after two years of separation, have a divorce if both agree.
Far worse is Clause 2(1)(e), which provides that either party may divorce the other after five years, whether the

other likes it or not. Any wife, young or old, fair or plain, angel or termagant, may be put away at will, and the only proposal in the Bill for her financial provision and that of her children is that the provision made by the husband shall be
the best that can be made in the circumstances".
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has dealt so adequately with that aspect of the matter that I need not detain the House on it. How about a dozen hon. Lady Members have found it possible to vote for the Bill, I shall never understand. In nine cases out of ten, it will be the wife who will suffer the humiliation and bitterness and who will have the endless anxiety of trying to secure provision for her middle and old age. If the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) really believes that the Bill is an unloving and unloved wives' charter, I can only say that she will be bitterly disappointed when she sees its effects, if it reaches the Statute Book.
In a largely secular country, one should not expect Parliament to insist that marriage shall be a life-long union, although Christians, no doubt, will continue to honour that ideal. But, if it becomes law, the Bill will cause a fundamental transformation in our way of life and will deal a mortal blow at the institutions of marriage and the family on which I have always believed our national happiness and stability were founded. I shall vote against its Third Reading.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: I shall not detain the House long because, like many other hon. Members who have been here through the night, I am beginning to feel that it is time I went home to bed. But I do not want this opportunity to pass without paying tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at the moment.
Those of us who sat on the Standing Committee last Session, and again this Session, have come to regard the right hon. and learned Gentleman with great appreciation. The arguments which he deployed against the Bill have been consistent and logical, and he has always


conducted himself towards my fellow sponsors and myself with the greatest of regard and courtesy. It is only right that today, as we are coming to the end of this phase of the Bill, tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be paid.
It is right to make the point, as several hon. Members have already done, that the numbers voting this day have not represented the great proportion of the House, and it could be said that those who have voted today do not truly represent the opinion of the House. But we are entitled to say from our side that on the Second Reading last Session and the Second Reading this Session there were votes in which the whole House was able to participate. All the time, the voting proportion has been the same, so I think that we can from our side truly say that the vote which is taking place today, although not a full representation of the whole House, is a fair representation of the feeling that has shown itself time and again.
I was the sponsor of the Bill last Session and I know how right hon. Members are when they say that it would probably have been better if this had been a Government Measure. I know from personal experience the responsibilities that the individual who is the sponsor carries. Indeed, when one is the sponsor of a Bill like this, one never seems to forget it. This is why it is that the Government should have taken over the responsibility of a Measure of this size. Last year, I stood before the Taj Mahal in the moonlight with my wife and all I could think about was, "The man who built this did not, with all his 14 wives, have a divorce Bill to think about."
As a law student, 30 years ago, I had the job of answering questions on the Act which we came to know and we still know as the Herbert Act. I can honestly say to law students of today that this Bill is far more understandable than that Act and much easier to answer questions about from the examinations board. Above all, I am convinced that the Bill will fill an important place in our divorce law and bring about an improvement that has long been necessary.

1.43 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I shall vote against the Third Reading, but unhappily and with no enthusiasm because I am aware of the hardship that is caused by the shabby continuation of a marriage that is a marriage in name only and has long since been dead in fact. I accept, as many of my hon. Friends who are going to vote against the Bill accept, that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage is the right criterion. The basic concept of the Bill is right but the way in which, regrettably, the sponsors have consistently refused to accept Amendments which would have made it acceptable to a much larger number of hon. Members means that I find myself unable to support the Bill.
I will give an example. Accepting as I do that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage is the right criterion, how could the sponsors ask us to accept that two years is a sufficient or irretrievable breakdown? It is a case of, "Till death us do part or two years have passed." That is not acceptable to me within the criteria that the Bill has set out to bring into operation.
Then there is the whole subject of financial safeguards for divorced women. These are wholly insufficient. There is the point, of course, that we have had the abivalent situation in which the half help the Bill but will not accept responsibility for it, which means that we have not been able to get all the advice we should have had about major matters that may arise. What about the widow's pension that goes to the wrong person? There has been a divorce and the man has remarried, but it happens that, 12 months later, he has a coronary and dies. The whole widow's pension goes to the woman he has been married to for 12 months, with no children. The wife who has lived and worked with him, and has had children by him, has all the problems of the matrimonial home left as a legacy to her while someone else gets the income which should have gone to maintain it.
The position of the Government on this matter is difficult to understand. They clearly support the Bill but equally they clearly believe it to be unsatisfactory because the Solicitor-General has told us that they propose to hold up its operation because it is not satisfactory until


new legislation has been introduced following the report of the Law Commission on deserted wives. The Government do not think that the Bill is ready to be brought in and they want to hold it up until other legislation is on the Statute Book. It is an extraordinary situation in which to put the House. The Government think the Bill unsatisfactory and give an assurance that legislation will be brought in but they cannot tell us what will be in that legislation. They ask us to take it on trust and on that basis put this Bill on the Statute Book.
I find myself in an incredibly difficult situation in being asked to vote for a Bill on the basis of an assurance of future legislation which in any case this Government may conceivably not have time to implement. Therefore, with considerable unhappiness at doing so, because the sponsors have not been prepared to accept Amendments, and because of the reason I have just outlined, I regret that I am unable to support the Bill on Third Reading.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: It looks at if I shall have almost the last word and it will be brief.
Once again a small group of reformers, whose sincerity, integrity and enthusiasm are not in doubt, has forced through the House a social reform Measure. It has been forced through in the absence of three-quarters of the House with a number of supporters totalling less than 20 per cent. of the membership of the House and against sustained opposition. But this Bill is different from the two other Measures, for two very important reasons.
I should think that 99 per cent. of the population do not feel themselves involved in the Acts to change the laws of homosexuality and abortion. But this Bill affects practically every person in the country. That is one major difference. The other is that the Bill seeks to disadvantage people who have entered into commitments voluntarily and who can now be removed from those commitments despite the fact that this might be against their will.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who has played a remarkable part throughout, and whom I congratulate,

has told us that he has had thousands of letters in support of his stand, and I am sure that all the sponsors of the Bill have had a similar experience. What he has not told us is what his constituents have said to him. What do the ordinary working men, the ordinary, respectable married people in his constituency and elsewhere, think?
In this connection, I point out a rather remarkable thing. The Bill, by and large, is a Southerners' Bill. I do not think we have heard one speech in support of it from the great regions of the North-West or the North-East of England, of which I have the honour to represent a small portion.

Mr. Abse: I gather that the hon. Gentleman has been asking what my constituents think. I can assure him that every time I introduce a Divorce Bill, as the election results reveal, my majority goes up.

Mr. Fortescue: Those two entirely unsupported phenomena are not quite relevant to what I was saying. I know what my constituents think about the Bill, because I have discussed it with hundreds of them. My constituents, and, I suspect, many hon. Members' constituents in the North of England, know an unfair Bill when they see one and they know a fiddle when they see one. They will hold this Bill against the Government because they regard it as a Government-supported Bill—maybe rightly. They will feel that they have been submitted to unfair legislation, in that spouses who have no wish to be divorced can now be divorced against their will. This is a talking point where I come from, and I suspect that it is a talking point in many other parts of the country, especially the North.
I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill, because its effects will creep under the door of every matrimonial home in the country. In my view, the Bill should never be on the Statute Book in this form.

1.53 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I shall delay the House for but a few moments, although I have sat here for many hours.
I say, quite firmly, that I shall vote against Third Reading for reasons which have been well expressed by those on


both sides who oppose the Bill, but also because I see it as part of a pattern of gradual erosion of the standards of christian upbringing which are being forced upon this country by a small minority, the Humanists among them, mentioned by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). We know that the next target is the removal of religious education in schools; so the House must be ready for that when it comes. I want to come back later, though not much later, to this gradual erosion of the standards by which most of us have been brought up by a minority in the country and, strangely enough, forced through by the votes of a minority in this House.
It has been suggested that the object or the effect of the Bill will be to strengthen marriage. I cannot imagine that a young couple entering into marriage, whenever the Bill comes into force, and knowing that they have only to separate for two years and live apart to agree to the break-up of the marriage, would feel that that is strengthening marriage in their eyes. It almost makes it a trial marriage for however short a period people might like—and two years is a short period in which to break up.
On the numbers affected by it, I feel that the sponsors, like the sponsors of the Abortion Act, will find that, though they have been thinking only of hard cases, once they open the floodgates the numbers will be much larger than they have ever imagined. This has happened with the demand for abortions and it will happen with the demand for divorces. It will not be the hard cases about which we have heard throughout the night and on previous days. There will be a greater demand, and the law courts, as has been said, will be under pressure, as will the public purse, when these financial arrangements are made.
I turn now to the Government's arrangements for putting on this type of Bill, as they have in the past, at 10 o'clock at night. Not only does it result in a small number of hon. Members being here because of commitments already entered into in their constituencies; it results in merely the dedicated protagonists and antagonists of the Bill being here. This may be all very well. It is why we get the same kind of

majority appearing all the time. But it also means that, as the Bill is taken at a time when most hon. Members cannot be here, we do not have the leavening of the uncommitted to listen to the arguments and vote on the Amendments according to those arguments. In the other place, when the Abortion Act was taken in normal time and many Members were present, very sensible Amendments were made as a result of uncommitted Members listening to the arguments and voting on the Amendments at the end of each debate. We have here a position in which committed hon. Members on both sides have been voting automatically either for or against, with no one among the uncommitted voting. This is a bad thing. I hope that the Government will remember this when they have future reforms, particularly of a moral and social nature, to introduce in this House.
I hope, furthermore, that they will consider, if they have any more up their sleeve, making them Government Bills. Friday is not the best day for great moral issues to be debated for the same reason, that many hon. Members go to their distant constituencies on Thursday night. Often they have commitments which have been entered into long before the announcement of the week's business is issued. Therefore, on a Friday there is an equally poor attendance. This is bad for great issues like the one that we have been debating through this long sitting.
I close with this plea to the Government. If they have any more reforms for which they have a yen—and they obviously had a yen for this one—to get through the House, I hope that they will take the responsible course of accepting those Measures in their own name and will come to the House with them in normal time, with the Whips off, so that the full House may debate, listen to arguments, and vote accordingly.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for leaving the debate for about an hour on other business, but I have followed the proceedings most attentively through the whole night and, indeed, most of the morning. I promise that I shall not be more than seven or eight minutes.
I feel so deeply about the Bill that I should be cheating myself were I not to express my thoughts. I do not like the Bill at all. The more I listened to the debate during the night, the less I liked it.
I cannot put the matter better than to quote my own life in relation to it. I have been married for 36 years. I suppose that in wifely terms I have been something of a scallywag in that I have been associated with trade union and political movements to the detriment of my home for 25 to 30 years of that period. Yet, notwithstanding that, my three children have all been through university. My wife has played a tremendous part in bringing that about. I suppose that I have been nothing more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yet, if I understand the Bill correctly, I could take to myself a floosie, I could live with her for five years, and I could then divorce my wife. That would be an almost infernal reward for the kind of services that I have had from her throughout my life. I suggest to the House, and I strongly suggest to both sponsors of the Bill, that that seems to be the morality of the gutter. I say that very definitely.

Mr. Alec Jones: Surely when my hon. Friend took this floosie, he, by that act, would have destroyed his marriage.

Mr. Dan Jones: I do not think so. I want to press on, because I have given Mr. Speaker a promise to be brief. I persist in saying that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent my doing what I have illustrated, and I should have dished a perfectly good woman into the gutter in the process, which is why I used the term.
We have heard from the Solicitor-General that the Bill will result in certain costs. It has been said that this Measure represents one law for the rich, and another for the poor. Apparently the poor will be subsidised from our social security system, but the law officers have not as yet put that legislation forward. This really is putting the cart before the horse, and, quite frankly, is hardly playing the game.
We know—and I take strong exception to this—that the demands made on that Department are particularly intense. We know that very shortly there will be an increased charge upon the industrial

strength of the nation to redeem those charges, and I humbly suggest to the sponsors of the Bill that this is hardly the time to get that Department involved in further expenditure of the kind that we have deduced as a result of the Bill.
I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). We know that the Bill will go to the other place and then come back with suggested Amendments. I hope the Government will realise how deeply many people feel about this issue, and will not allow those Amendments to be discussed through the night. As the hon. Gentleman said, only the protagonists and antagonists have been here, but we know without a shadow of doubt that many right hon. and hon. Members who have deep misgivings about the Bill cannot face an all-night sitting to do the necessary combat.
If the Government are to give more time to the Bill, and I raise no objection to that—that is a privilege to enable hon. Members to keep Private Members' Bills going—I earnestly appeal to them to ensure that future discussions are carried on at a time when the House can be full to discuss this issue in the way that it ought to be discussed. If necessary, we should take two or three days off the long recess to do so. In my view, and in the view of perhaps the majority of hon. Members, this Bill gives rise to misgivings, and I hope that the Government will provide an opportunity for the House fully to discharge its obligations in the way that I have indicated.

2.3 p.m.

Mr. Abse: I shall not keep the House for very long. I am glad that we are reaching the end of our deliberations. Despite some of the jeremiads of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe that this Bill will bring some rationality into our diverce law, which has brought the administration of justice into disrepute. It is a Bill which will bring out of the twilight world perhaps a quarter of a million people who today are denied the right to marry, and will bestow married parents on 200,000 children who are now illegitimate. It will rid the law, at least partially, of the doctrine of the matrimonial offence, and pay attention to the problem of marriage breakdown and so activate marriage mending and healing, and in that process, after six years of


helping to bring the Bill to the Statute Book, I should like to participate.
This Measure has precipitated other Bills which will alter the property relationship for the benefit and protection of wives, and it is likely in the long run also to be able to cause a review of the whole position in National Insurance of divorced women.
We have steered the Bill to make certain that it is neither, as its opponents have declared, a Casanova's charter, nor a Jezebel's justification. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) for having taken the lead here, and for all the co-operation that he has given, and indeed comradeship that he has provided, in trying to get this Bill on to the Statute Book.
I thank, too, the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson), who took the initiative last year, and who has worked so loyally with those who wished to obtain the objective of at long last getting the Bill through the House. Lastly, I thank, and indeed

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[2.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Nott, John


Albu, Austen
Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haseldine, Norman
Oram, Albert E.


Archer, Peter
Hobden, Dennis
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn.)


Barnes, Michael
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bell, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Paget, R. T.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Howie, W.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boyden, James
Huckfield, Leslie
Pavitt, Laurence


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'sce &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rees, Merlyn


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Cant, R. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roebuck, Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Eiwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Kenyon, Clifford
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Concannon, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lubbock, Eric
Silverman, Julius


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Emery, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ennals, David
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Vickers, Dame Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitaker, Ben


Fisher, Nigel
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Ford, Ben
Moonman, Eric



Forrester, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Peter M. Jackson and


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Murray, Albert
Mr. Christopher Price.


Gregory, Arnold
Newens, Stan

salute, the opponents of the Bill with whom I have formed personal friendships which did not exist before. They have performed the task which an opposition group should perform in keeping us wholly on our toes and scrutinising the Bill in every way.

I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and to the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) who did so much in the last Session. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. and learned Members for Southport (Mr. Percival) and Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) who have been protagonists but have always behaved in the way that one would expect House of Commons men to behave.

Mr. Speaker, I now make a suggestion of which I am sure you will approve. I hope that the time has come when we can all go home to our marriage beds and to our long-suffering wives.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 55.

NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Alldritt, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Russell, Sir Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hill, J. E. B.
Silvester, Frederick


Beamish, Colonel Sir Tufton
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Small, William


Body, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Tuck, Raphael


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Delargy, Hugh
Lane, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Foley, Maurice
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Longden, Gilbert
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Bruce Campbell and


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Percival, Ian
Sir Cyril Black.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT (UNAUTHORISED FLIGHT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn till Monday next.—[Mr. Concannon.]

2.16 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Some time during the morning of Friday, 23rd May, Sergeant Paul Meyer, of the United States Air Force, who was stationed at Mildenhall, in my constituency, was found staggering along the A11 road. The police, in accordance with the Visiting Forces Act, returned this young American to his base where a security guard put him to bed to "sleep it off".
Shortly before dawn Sergeant Meyer awoke and, walking through the main gate, he entered into the cockpit of a C130 aircraft. There was nothing unusual about this, since Sergeant Meyer, as a master mechanic, was employed on these large aircraft and no suspicions were aroused until, without making radio contact with the tower, the aircraft roared down the runway and took off.
Thereafter, it appears that this huge aircraft, flown single-handed by a man without any pilot training, travelled at high speed and presumably at a fairly low level across a wide area of Southern England. It came dangerously close to the extremely busy air traffic routes in and out of London Airport. It was eventually picked up, although not for some considerable time, by American and British radar and finally, after radio

contact was made with it, Sergeant Meyer was able to speak with his wife in Virginia. Shortly afterwards it appears that Sergeant Meyer lost control of the aircraft and, as far as I can ascertain, crashed into the English Channel somewhere between Bournemouth and Cherbourg.
So much for the bare facts. I turn now to the important questions that led me to seek this short debate. Before I do so, however, perhaps I may express my sympathy to Mrs. Meyer and her family and also to the commanding officer and others at the Mildenhall base. From long and close experience, I have developed the warmest regard and respect for the United States Air Force in this country, and I want to put it on record that in my constituency United States airmen and their families are model guests and welcome neighbours.
I have myself frequently visited Mildenhall base and, indeed, I may well have been shown through the particular aircraft which Sergeant Meyer hijacked, if that is the right term. I therefore have little doubt that the American Air Force inquiry, now being conducted, will establish all the pertinent facts and will lead to such changes or tightening up of security arrangements as may be needed to ensure that such a dangerous incident will not occur again. Nevertheless, I have several important questions to put to the Minister.
First, I seek an assurance that all possible steps have been taken by the American authorities to guard the many aircraft stationed at Mildenhall and other


American bases against any future danger of a drunken, demented or even disloyal man taking off on unauthorised flights.
This is not the first such incident. In June, 1958, another United States mechanic took off in a B45 bomber from Alconbury base, in Huntingdon, and this aircraft crashed on to the London-Edinburgh railway line. There have been other cases in the United States since them. One does not have to be a devotee of "Dr. Strangelove" to recognise that a huge aircraft, carrying thousands of gallons of high octane petrol, not to mention the possibility of even more deadly items, can be a lethal weapon in the hands of an untrained and possibly unstable man.
I thank heaven that Sergeant Meyer did not crash his aircraft on one of my Suffolk villages, or, much worse, on Central London in the rush hour. If that had happened, scores and perhaps hundreds of British lives might have been lost. So my first request is for a categorical assurance that everything possible is being done at Mildenhall and elsewhere to prevent such an incident from recurring.
Secondly, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that this aircraft did fly across the air traffic pattern of London Airport? At the time, I am told that several dozen large passenger jets were arriving and taking off from London, and to inject a rogue aircraft into this pattern was extremely hazardous. I hope that the Minister can tell me at precisely what hour the air traffic radar at London Airport picked up this dangerous intruder. I hope that he can tell me what steps were taken to warn or divert other civilian aircraft in the vicinity.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also say if, as is rumoured, nothing was done along these lines, was it because the Hercules was not located, or if it was, as a "blip" on the screens, was it not identified as the missing aircraft from Mildenhall? Above all, has the Board of Trade reviewed the procedures concerning such incidents? Are the Government satisfied that the action taken in all the circumstances was satisfactory?
Thirdly, I understand, that R.A.F. and United States fighter aircraft were ordered

to search for the missing Hercules. Is this true? If so, why did they not find it? With an official American inquiry proceeding, I do not ask the Minister to anticipate its findings, but I am sure that he is aware of the anxieties which have arisen about the adequacy of our defences, if fighter aircraft were sent up and failed to locate a very large and comparatively slow Hercules transport flying over England in daylight.
Then there is the question of our military radars. It is alleged—I put it no higher—that no radar contact was made with the plane until an hour and a half after its unauthorised take-off. Is this true? If it is, it is very disturbing.
I do not want, and the Minister would not welcome it if I did, the pursuit of this question in great depth at the moment. There are some obvious security considerations. But I believe that the House is entitled to a clear-cut assurance that our radar defences are adequate, or, if they were shown by this incident not to be, that the most urgent steps are being taken to make them adequate and without a moment's delay.
Finally, I turn to the United States Air Force inquiry which is currently going on. Obviously, it has had to be conducted in secret and most of its findings are likely to remain classified. But can he tell me why no British officer was allowed to be present as an observer? We and the Americans are allies and there should be no secrets between us, at least about flights of American aircraft across our own country. So will the hon. Gentleman also give a categorical assurance that the United States Air Force will provide a transcript of its inquiry hearings to the British Government? This is essential, so that those responsible for this country's air defence and air traffic safety may satisfy themselves that the investigation has been thorough and that the conclusions are satisfactory.
Moreover, once the Minister has studied the transcript and considered the Americans' conclusions and the steps which they take, I hope that he will not exclude the possibility of a further British study of this incident. What matters to the House is the safeguarding of British interests and, for that matter, British lives. We have just seen, in the case of Captain Thain, that different nations' experts can reach very different


conclusions about air crashes. I do not wish to see any such differences creating injustices, misunderstanding or grievances between this country and the Americans over this incident.
So, finally, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the American evidence will be made known to the Government and that, when it has been studied and all the facts are to hand, he will make a further statement to the House. This is essential to satisfy the genuine anxieties of my constituents, to satisfy those who fly in and out of London Airport that our air traffic arrangements are adequate and, above all, to assure us that the military radar defences of this country are adequate for the task before them.

2.28 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): May I, first, join the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) in extending my sympathy to Mrs. Meyer? I am sure that the House will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks about American forces in this country. I also thank him for the way in which he has raised this issue, and I hope that my reply will remove some of the misconceptions which have arisen about this case.
First, I would give the House a brief statement of the main facts of the incident as they appear to me. They derive from two sources—the information which the United States authorities promptly placed at our disposal, and the very comprehensive data available from the British air traffic control system.
I must emphasise, as the hon. Member fairly put it, that an American board of inquiry is at present considering the incident with the object of establishing all the attendant circumstances, and recommending any remedial steps which may be necessary. The board was convened almost immediately after the incident and it is still in session. I am assured that it is examining the matter with great thoroughness. Until the American authorities have received and considered the findings of this board, a number of questions obviously remain sub judice, including questions touching the responsibility of individual members of the United States Air Force. The House will not expect me to deal with points of this kind.
I shall, therefore, confine myself to four matters—first, the course of events from the moment at which the unauthorised flight began; second, the action taken by the British and American authorities during the course of the incident; third, the action subsequently taken by my Department; and, fourth, certain wider matters about which hon. Members and some sections of the Press have expressed anxiety.
The facts of the incident are these. At 5.15 a.m. on Friday, 23rd May, 1969, an American Air Force sergeant, who was a member of the establishment of ground personnel at the United States Air Force base at the R.A.F. Station, Mildenhall, made an unauthorised take-off in an American C130 Hercules aircraft. This was detected immediately by the United States Air Force authorities at Mildenhall.
With commendable speed, they informed the United Kingdom Air Traffic Control organisation and the Air Defence Operations Centre of R.A.F. Strike Command within minutes of the unauthorised take-off. Almost simultaneously—three minutes after the take-off, to be precise—a radar response was observed on British radars. The information given to us by the American authorities enabled the unschedule radar plot to be at once identified as the rogue aircraft.
London Airways Civil Air Traffic Control was immediately warned of a potential penetration of its controlled air space. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be very much encouraged to hear that. He was right to raise these matters which caused anxiety to him and perhaps to his constituents. I hope that this will relieve some of that anxiety.
From the moment of the first radar observation to the eventual disappearance of their aircraft off the Cherbourg peninsula one and a half hours later, the Hercules was continuously tracked by British radars. Information about its height, course and probable future track was provided to all air traffic control authorities concerned or likely to be concerned, including the Continental radar system. There is no truth in the suggestion that it was at any stage before its final disappearance lost to radar surveillance or that any of the traffic control authorities concerned were without information about its course and height.
Nor, because of the prompt action taken by the air traffic control autthorities, did the Hercules become a hazard to other aircraft under air traffic control. I know that the hon. Member has been very concerned about that because of the danger to other traffic in the area. All necessary warnings were issued and in one case a civil aircraft bound for London was given special instructions to steel clear of the Hercules' track. In short, the British air traffic control system operated with commendable speed and efficiency throughout the incident.
It is not the case that the rogue aircraft remained unseen or unidentified, nor was there any lack of adequate information about its behaviour throughout the period of the flight. The incident confirms our confidence in the arrangements for tracking and controlling aircraft in British airspace. It also confirms the close and efficient liaison which exists between ourselves and the United States Air Force authorities in this country.
It may be worth adding that vessels of the Royal Navy and a Whirlwind helicopter of the R.A.F. took part in search operations and at sea, later, a naval vessel responded to the request of the American authorities for assistance in salvaging the wreckage.
So much for the course of events on 23rd May. Following the incident, my Department has been in touch with the U.S. Air Force headquarters in this country, and discussions have taken place. The American authorities are in no doubt about the public disquiet which has been expressed, and we have conveyed to them our concern, which they share, that the attendant circumstances of the incident should be examined carefully and all reasonable steps taken to guard against a recurrence. It is precisely for these purposes that the U.S. Air Force has convened the board of inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
As I am sure is generally understood, the discipline of American personnel and the security of American aircraft at United States Air Force bases in this country is solely the responsibility of the American authorities. We have no power to regulate for the American Armed Forces, and we would not wish to have. It is for the American authorities alone

to devise and, as necessary, to review such procedures as are needed for security and safety. They are as much interested in such matters as we are. For our part, however, we are fully entitled to express our views and seek assurances. That is what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman has asked whether we shall see the proceedings of the American board of inquiry. I can assure him that we shall certainly be informed of its outcome. We are asking the United States Air Force authorities to let us know in due course whether the evidence taken by the board, the findings that it reaches, and the subsequent consideration of these matters by the appropriate American authorities have suggested the need for additional precautions against the unauthorised use of aircraft. We shall seek an assurance that all the necessary steps are being taken.
For this purpose, we do not need to be given a transcript of the board's proceedings and, indeed, it would be contrary to all accepted practice to ask for one. The only essential question for us both is not the machinery by which inquiries are made, but the conclusions which are reached by the American authorities and any necessary steps to which those conclusions point. On those matters, we shall expect to be fully informed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This is a crucial matter. I accept that the Americans are capable of conducting their own inquiry, but does the hon. Gentleman consider it enough just to accept their conclusions without making the British Government aware of all the pertinent information on which those conclusions are based? The public mind requires some assurance on that.

Mr. Morris: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I require to be satisfied about the necessary security precautions and to ensure that all the requisite information to do that will be available to me. However, there is no precedent for having a transcript of the inquiry, which may be concerned with a number of other disciplinary matters which are of no affair of ours.
The hon. Gentleman may have experience of inquiries of this kind and of the precedents which our own courts may have as regards internal Service inquiries.


What is important is not the machinery, but that I should be satisfied. I give him the assurance that I shall expect to be satisfied about the necessary security precautions which he has stressed.
I should like to add that, in advance of the board's findings, the U.S. Air Force has already issued instructions reinforcing existing orders governing the security of aircraft and discipline of personnel.
As for any wider implications of the incident, I have noted carefully the anxieties expressed by hon. Members and by the Press. I hope that the information which I have already given will have removed any anxieties about the adequacy of our arrangements for tracking and identifying aircraft in British airspace. As I have said, the performance of the air traffic control system was exemplary.
The question may well be asked whether a similar incident could occur involving an aircraft armed with nuclear weapons. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to "deadly weapons". As the House has been assured on a number of occasions, very elaborate procedures are applied both by ourselves and by the Americans to ensure that there is no possibility of unauthorised use of nuclear weapons or of aircraft with a nuclear potentiality.
It would not be in the public interest to describe the procedures in detail but, as is generally known, they rest on the "two-man" principle; that is to say, they impose at every stage in the handling of nuclear weapons and aircraft with a nuclear potentiality the requirement that at least two authorised and independent individuals must act simultaineously. In addition, there are elaborate precautions for guarding weapons and aircraft and preventing unauthorised access to them.
We do not apply precautions of this degree of stringency to other aircraft; for example, aircraft of the type represented by the Hercules transport aircraft are

not fitted to carry nuclear weapons. To do so would be prohibitively expensive, and we do not believe that it would be justified.
That is not to say that we view the unauthorised use of the general run of military aircraft with the smallest degree of equanimity, or that strict rules do not exist for the security of those aircraft and for the discipline of the personnel who have access to them. There are very carefully designed regulations, and arrangements for enforcing them. These are such as would place very serious obstacles in the way of the unauthorised use of aircraft, and incidents of the kind which recently took place at Mildenhall are exceedingly rare.
But I would draw a very clear distinction between aircraft carrying a nuclear capacity and the general run of military aircraft. The procedures in force for the security of the former are designed to be proof against even very extreme and exceedingly improbable contingencies: the procedures for the general run of military aircraft, though strict, are less extreme. It follows that it would be altogether mistaken to conclude from the incident at Mildenhall that anything remotely comparable could have occurred with aircraft possessing a nuclear capacity.
In addition to seeking from the American authorities the assurance I have already mentioned, we have taken stock of our own arrangements for the security of aircraft in the Royal Air Force, and I am satisfied that they do not require revision.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Three o'clock p.m. till Monday next.